LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

RECEIVED    BY   EXCHANGE 

Class  >' 


POLITICAL  HISTORY 


OF 


NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE 
PERIOD  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR 


BY 

SIDNEY  DAVID  BRUMMER,  A.  M. 


SUBMITTED   IN   PARTIAL   FULFILMENT   OF   THE   REQUIREMENTS 

FOR   THE   DEGREE   OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 


PREFACE 

WITHIN  the  past  dozen  years  or  so,  there  has  been  a 
growing  recognition  that  the  political  history  of  some  of  our 
states  is  worthy  of  investigation.  That  this  is  true  of  New 
York  especially  has  been  frequently  observed.  Until  a  very 
recent  date,  the  only  political  history  of  this  State  deserv 
ing  the  name  was  Hammond's;  and  that  carried  the  nar 
rative  only  to  1848.  S\ice  then,  Alexander's  three- volume 
work  has  been  published.  My  study  was  begun  before 
the  announcement  of  Alexander's  first  two  volumes  was 
made  in  1906,  and  it  was  nearly  finished  when  his  third  vol 
ume  (which  deals  with  the  greater  part  of  the  period  here 
covered)  appeared  in  1909.  I  have  made  little  or  no  use  of 
Alexander.  A  comparison  of  my  attempt  with  his  work  will 
show  how  differently  we  have  conceived  the  field.  In  the 
treatment  of  topics  which  belong  to  the  general  history  of 
the  country  or  the  history  of  the  national  political  parties, 
the  aim  here  has  been  to  omit  so  far  as  possible  whatever 
did  not  relate  immediately  to  New  York  State  or  its  action ; 
in  other  words,  to  avoid  repeating  what  may  be  found  in 
other  books,  such  as  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States. 

The  most  interesting  and  piquant  details  of  the  politics  of 
the  time,  I  am  not  able  to  give.  Until  more  memoirs  relat 
ing  to  the  subject  are  published  or  correspondence  of  the 
leaders  revealed,  occurrences  such  as  those  which  took  place 
in  Thurlow  Weed's  room  at  the  Astor  House  *  must  remain 
unknown.  Thus  far,  there  is  a  paucity  of  material  dealing 

1  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  237. 

205]  5 


232968 


6  PREFACE  [206 

with  this  phase  of  New  York's  history,  outside  of  the  news 
papers.  It  is  largely  upon  these  sources  of  information, 
rather  looked  down  upon  though  perhaps  not  with  good 
reason,  as  Mr.  James  Ford  Rhodes  has  pointed  out,1  that 
one  must  rely.  I  trust  that  by  basing  many  of  the  statements 
made  upon  at  least  two  sources  of  different  political  faith  or 
of  a  different  nature,  some  of  the  pitfalls  attending  the  use 
of  newspapers  as  material  for  history  have  been  avoided. 
Of  course,  where  a  document  is  printed  in  full  in  a  paper  or 
book,  this  double  reference  has  not  been  made.  Care  has  been 
taken,  by  a  comparison  of  wording,  not  to  cite  Associated 
Press  dispatches  from  more  than  one  paper.  The  Herald 
references  frequently  include  both  material  furnished  by  the 
Associated  Press  and  by  the  Herald's  own  special  correspond 
ent.  The  press  of  that  day  was  not  the  same  as  now.  More 
attention  was  given  to  politics ;  legislative  proceedings  were 
reported  in  detail,  as  were  those  of  conventions  and  com 
mittees;  and  important  letters  bearing  upon  politics  were 
often  published.  From  the  newspapers,  one  can  at  least 
learn  the  outward  doings  in  the  political  field  of  that  time. 

I  wish  to  express  my  gratitude  to  Professors  William 
A.  Dunning  and  Herbert  L.  Osgood  for  reading  the  manu 
script  and  proofs.  I  am  especially  indebted  to  Professor 
Dunning.  He  suggested  the  subject  and  encouraged  me 
while  working  it  out,  and  to  his  assistance  must  be  attributed 
very  many  corrections  and  improvements. 

SIDNEY  D.  BRUMMER. 
NEW  YORK,  MARCH  i,  1910. 

1  Rhodes'  Historical  Essays,  p.  83  et  seq. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PACK 

THE  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE  IN  1860 

Character  of  New  York  politics  during  the  war  period 17 

Factions  within  the  Republican  party 17 

Thurlow  Weed 19 

How  far  was  Weed  corrupt  ? 22 

The  Democratic  factions.    The  Albany  Regency 24 

Tammany  Hall  ....  26 

Mozart  Hall 27 

Wood's  up-State  allies       .    .  29 

Fragments  of  decomposed  parties 31 

The  offices  in  1860 32 

Character  of  the  state  government ••,...  33 

The  rings  in  New  York  City 35 

Political  rottenness  in  New  York  City,  1860-1865 36 

The  slavery  issue  in  the  Legislature  of  1860 39 

The  New  York  City  railroad  bills 40 

Proposed  legislation  against  the  New  York  Central  Railroad  ...  42 
The  metropolitan  police  bill  and  the  proposed  charter  amendments 

for  New  York  City 46 

CHAPTER  II 
NEW  YORK  AND  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860 

The  Wood  delegation  to  Charleston 48 

The  Regency  delegation 49 

The  Regency  wins  the  first  stages  of  the  contest 52 

The  Regency  delegation  seated ....  53 

Action  of  the  New  York  delegation  in  the  Charleston  convention.  54 

New  York  at  Baltimore 56 

New  York's  part  in  the  nominations  of  Bell  and  Everett 60 

Seward  the  choice  of  the  Republicans  of  New  York 62 

Greeley's  activity  at  Chicago 63 

Bitter  controversy  among  New  York  Republicans 64 

Nevertheless,  New  York  supports  Lincoln  heartily 67 

207]  7 


8  CONTENTS  [208 

PAGB 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  IN  NEW  YORK 

Prospects  of  a  fusion  electoral  ticket 70 

Fernando  Wood,  Mozart  Hall,  and  other  prominent  Democrats 

for  fusion 71 

Attitude  of  the  Bell-Everett  men    ... 73 

Obstacles  to  the  formation  of  a  fusion 73 

The  Constitutional  Union  State  Convention  of  1860 75 

The  Breckinridge  Democratic  State  Convention 76 

The  Douglas  Democratic  State  Convention «...  78 

Controversy  over  the  Bell- Everett  electoral  candidates 80 

Attempt  of  the  Democratic  State  Committees  to  arrange  a  fusion  .  81 

Fusion  finally  consummated                      83 

Democratic  prospects  of  success  weakened  by  the  long  and  em 
bittered  negotiations 86 

The  Republican  State  Convention  of  1860 86 

Weakness  of  the  fusion 88 

The  issues  of  the  campaign  in  New  York  State    .    .   .    • 90 

Part  played  by  the  commercial  interests  of  New  York  City  ....  91 
Notable  array  of  speakers  and  numerous  meetings  of  the  Republi 
cans  93 

The  Wide  Awakes  and  the  Little  Giants 94 

Disadvantages  of  the  Democrats 95 

The  former  American  vote 96 

Attempt  to  frighten  Lincoln  supporters  by  a  commercial  panic  .   .  96 
Results  of  the  election.     Defeat  of  the  proposed  amendment  to  the 

state  constitution 97 

CHAPTER  IV 

NEW  YORK  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR 
The  crisis  of  December,  1860:  measures  advocated  by  Greeley  and 

Weed  respectively                                                                       ....  99 
The  majority  of  New  York  Republicans  opposed  to  Weed's  pro 
posed  compromise    .    .                                              101 

Attitude  of  the  Democrats:  the  Pine  Street  meeting 101 

The  Legislature  of  1861:  contest  in  the  Republican  caucus        ...  102 

Differences  in  the  Republican  ranks 104 

Robinson's  resolutions  concerning  the  territories 105 

Attitude  of  the   Democrats  in  the   Legislature  during  the  early 

months  of  1861 105 

Resolutions  reported  from  committee  in  the  Assembly  and  in  the 

Senate 107 


209] 


CONTENTS 


A  Republican  caucus  votes  down  compromise 109 

The  compromisers  defeated  in  the  Assembly 109 

The  question  of  the  appointment  of  commissioners  to  the  Peace 

Conference  at  Washington no 

Call  for  a  Democratic  state  convention  to  save  the  Union  ....  112 

Prominent  members  of  the  convention 114 

Contest  between  Tammany  and  Mozart 116 

Seymour's  speech 117 

Speeches  of  Tremain,  Thayer,  and  Tilden 119 

The  resolutions  adopted  and  the  committees  appointed 121 

Ineffectiveness  of  the  convention 123 

Utterances  of  New  York  Democratic  extremists:  Mayor  Wood, 

the  Albany  Argus,  and  Daniel  E.  Sickles .  123 

The  great  "Union-saving"  meeting  at  Cooper  Institute 126 

Wood  and  the  Georgia  muskets 126 

Rivalry  between  the  Greeley  and  Weed  factions 127 

Their  contest  in  Washington  over  the  cabinet 128 

The  Greeley-Evarts  senatorial  contest 130 

Election  of  Ira  Harris 134 

The  two  factions  battle  for  the  control  of  the  federal  patronage  in 

New  York 136 

Democratic  opposition  in  February  to  a  bill  appropriating  money 

for  equipping  the  militia 139 

Tremendous  change  caused  by  the  attack  on  Fort  Sumter:  action 

of  the  Legislature;  attitude  of  the  Democratic  legislators  ....  140 

Patriotic  meetings  throughout  the  State 143 

The  monster  meeting  in  New  York  City 144 

Patriotic  stand  of  many  Democrats 147 

Evidence  that  some  Democrats  were  swept  along  unwillingly  by 

the  revolution  in  public  sentiment 148 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  GENESIS  OP  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  NEW  YORK 

Early  appearance  of  a  partisan  revival  in  this  State 151 

Activity  of  the  peace  press 152 

The  Democratic  state  organization  refuses  to  accept  the  Republican 

invitation  to  unite  on  a  Union  ticket 154 

Importance  of  the  action  of  the  Democratic  organization  on  this 

occasion 155 

Resolutions  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee 156 


10  CONTENTS  [2IO 


PAGE 


The  necessity  of  subordinating  politics  to  the  interests  of  the  coun 
try  admitted  by  all  parties  in  New  York,  but  rejected  in  practice 

by  the  Democratic  state  organization 157 

The  Democratic  State  Convention  of  1861      ...........  158 

Contest  between  Tammany  and  Mozart 160 

The  platform  a  victory  for  the  advocates  of  peace 162 

The  ninth  resolution  a  great  handicap  to  the  Democrats 164 

The  People's  State  Convention 165 

The  Republican  State  Convention  unites  with  the  People's  Con 
vention  in  support  of  a  Union  ticket  ...  .   .  169 

The  Union  platform .    .       . i6g 

Partial  fusion  of  Republicans  and  War  Democrats  on  local  and 

legislative  nominations  170 

Mozart  ratifies  the  Union  state  ticket;  Tammany  repudiates  a  part 

of  the  Democratic  state  platform 171 

Nevertheless,    Mozart  and   Tammany  amicably  divide   the    local 

spoils:  triumph  of  the  ring 173 

Result  of  the  election 175 

The  New  York  City  charter  election  of  December,  1861       .    .    .  175 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE  LEGISLATIVE  SESSION  OF  1862 

A  lull  in  New  York  politics  during  the  early  part  of  1862 179 

The  Legislature  of  1862:  composition  and  leaders 180 

Caucus  contest  for  the  speakership 181 

Weakness  of  the  Democratic  minority  .  184 

Subjects  of  the  few  partisan  divisions  which  did  occur  .  .  .  185 

Notable  absence  of  party  spirit  in  the  Legislature  of  1862 186 

The  session  develops,  however,  important  personal  rivalries  in 

the  ranks  of  the  majority 187 

The  question  of  taxation 187 

The  bill  for  harbor  defence 189 

Struggle  between  the  New  York  City  factions  transferred  to  the 

Legislature 190 

Nevertheless,  the  threatened  rupture  in  the  ranks  of  the  majority 

fails  to  develop  . 191 

Attitude  of  the  Seward-Weed  faction  toward  a  renewal  of  the  fusion.  191 

Calling  of  a  Union  legislative  caucus 194 

Action  of  the  caucus „ 194 

The  Union  legislative  address  and  resolutions 197 

Importance  of  the  action  of  New  York  on  this  occasion  .  .  .  .  200 


21 1]                                        CONTENTS  II 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  VII 
THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS 

Influences  at  work  in  New  York  to  produce  a  revival  of  party 

politics 201 

Temporary  eclipse  of  Weed;  his  trip  to  Europe 201 

Return  of  Weed;  the  effect  of  his  reentrance  into  New  York  politics.  202 

Revival  of  rumors  of  a  conservative  alliance    .           203 

Influence  of  the  progress  of  the  Republican  party  toward  abolition.  204 

New  York  City  as  a  center  of  abolition  agitation 205 

Activity  of  anti-abolitionists  in  New  York  City 206 

Influence  of  the  reverses  met  with  by  the  Federal  armies  during 

the  summer  of  1862                                208 

Union  war  meetings 208 

The  proposed  state  draft 209 

Attitude  of  the  former  Bell-Everett  men  and  of  the  Democrats 

toward  a  Union  ticket 210 

The  Constitutional  Union  State  Convention  of  1862        .    .       ...  212 

The  Democratic  State  Convention  of  1862 213 

Nomination  of  Seymour.     His  speech 215 

The  platform 217 

Strength  of  the  ticket 217 

The  Republican-Union  Convention  of  1862 218 

Wadsworth  favored  by  the  radicals ...  218 

Weed  supports  Dix  and  a  conservative  platform 220 

Morgan,  Fenton,  and  Cook 221 

Tremain's  speech      222 

Speeches  of  Johnson,  Raymond,  and  Noyes 224 

A  victory  for  the  radical  wing 224 

CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION 

Justification  of  a  detailed  account  of  the  campaign  in  New  York 

State  in  1862 227 

The  importance  of  the  election  in  New  York  to  the  country  as  a 

whole  emphasized  by  both  parties  227 

The  Democrats  accused  of  disloyalty  ...  . 228 

The  past  utterances  of  Seymour  and  other  New  York  Democratic 

leaders  used  against  their  party 230 

Charge  that  Seymour  if  elected  governor  wou!4  not  cooperate  with 

the  national  administration  in  carrying  on  the  war 232 


12  CONTENTS  [212 

FACB 

The  necessity  of  laying  aside  party  as  an  issue  of  the  campaign  .  .  233 

Seymour  denies  the  charges  of  disloyalty 235 

The  Democrats  accuse  their  adversaries  of  being  the  real  enemies 

of  the  national  administration 236 

Bitterness  of  the  canvass 237 

Abolition  as  an  issue  in  New  York 238 

Arbitrary  proceedings  of  the  national  administration  as  an  issue  .  .  240 

Corruption  and  inefficiency  at  Washington  as  issues 242 

Answer  of  the  Republican-Unionists  to  the  charges  of  corruption 

and  inefficiency  on  the  part  of  the  national  administration  .  .  .  243 
Weakness  of  the  Democratic  attacks  on  the  failures  to  end  the  war.  244 

Wadsworth's  relations  to  McClellan 245 

Other  issues 247 

Notable  speakers  during  the  campaign 247 

Importance  of  the  contests  for  congress  and  for  the  state  legislature.  247 

Effect  of  the  state  enrolment  on  the  election 248 

Result  of  the  election 249 

Examination  of  the  causes  of  Wadsworth's  defeat .  249 

Effect  of  the  Democratic  victory 254 

CHAPTER  IX 
THE  PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE 

Seymour's  opportunity  as  governor  in  1863 255 

His  inaugural  speech 257 

His  annual  message  of  1863 258 

Attempt  to  remove  the  Commissioners  of  the  Metropolitan  Police.  261 

The  tie  in  the  Assembly  .                     264 

Exciting  and  disorderly  contest  for  the  speakership 265 

Election  of  Callicot          269 

Democratic  charge  of  a  corrupt  bargain  leads  to  a  renewal  of  par 
tisan  battles  over  Callicot       270 

The  election  of    a  United  States  senator.     Result  of  the  Union 

caucus    . 271 

The  Democratic  nomination 273 

Morgan's  election  a  victory  for    the    conservative    wing   of    the 

Union  party                                 273 

Partisan  debates  in  the  Legislature  of  1863 274 

Debates  on  the  McClellan  resolutions 275 

Debates  on  the  administration's  emancipation  policy 276 

The  question  of  the  payment  of  the  interest  on  the  state  debt  in 

specie  or  greenbacks 277 


213]                                        CONTENTS  !3 

PAGE 

The  bill  authorizing  state  banks  to  become  national  banks   ....  277 

The  bill  to  permit  those  in  the  federal  military  service  to  vote  .  .    .  278 

Seymour's  special  message    .   .               280 

Passage  of  the  bill  by  the  two  houses,  and  its  veto  by  the  Governor.  282 
Comparative  weakness  of  the  peace  faction  among  the  Democratic 

legislators  of  New  York  .      283 

The  Democratic  legislative  address .  285 

Criticism  of  the  address 287 

The  Union  legislative  address 288 

CHAPTER  X 
MOVEMENTS  WITHIN  THE  UNIONIST  RANKS 

The  Weed  faction  and  the  Democrats 290 

Retirement  of  Weed  from  the  Albany  Evening  Journal 291 

Warfare  between  Weed  and  his  radical  adversaries 292 

John  Van  Buren  and  James  T.  Brady 295 

Organization  of  the  Loyal  Union  League 295 

The  Loyal  National  League 297 

The  Madison  Square  demonstration 298 

Political  significance  of  the  loyal  league  movement 300 

State  conventions  of  the  loyal  leagues 301 

CHAPTER  XI 

COPPERHEADISM   IN    NEW   YORK 

Attitude  of  the  Democrats  of  New  York  toward  conscription  .    .    .  303 

Mozart  Hall  and  Fernando  Wood  declare  against  the  act  .       ...  304 

Wood's  mass  meeting  favors  peace  and  opposes  conscription  .   .   .  306 

Indignation  of  New  York  Democrats  at  the  Vallandigham  arrest  308 

Vallandigham  meetings  of  protest  at  Albany,  Buffalo,  and  Brooklyn.  309 

The  New  York  City  meeting           311 

Divisions  in  the  New  York  Democracy  on  the  question  of  support 
ing  the  prosecution  of  the  war 315 

Wood's  mass  state  convention  for  peace  and  reunion S  316 

CHAPTER  XII 

SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL 

The  draft  riot 320 

Governor  Seymour's  actions  and  measures  on  this  occasion    .   .   .  321 


14  CONTENTS  [2I4 

PAGB 

Warm  controversy  among  the  metropolitan  newspapers  over  the 

riot ^323 

The  draft  in  the  rest  of  the  State 323 

The  question  of  whether  the  draft  would  be  enforced  in  New  York 

City  324 

Action  of  Democratic  common  councils  and  boards  of  supervisors.  325 

Seymour's  correspondence  with  Lincoln  about  the  draft  ...  .  327 

Criticism  of  Seymour's  letters  .  329 

Correspondence  between  Dix  and  Seymour 335 

Seymour's  proclamation  of  August  i8th 336 

The  Union  State  Convention  of  1863 337 

The  platform  .  338 

The  new  Union  State  Committee 339 

The  Democratic  State  Convention  of  1863 340 

Seymour's  address  to  the  convention 340 

The  resolutions  and  nominations 342 

Issues  of  the  campaign 344 

General  substitution  of  the  designation  "  Union  "  for  the  old  party 

name  ' '  Republican  " 348 

Prominent  speakers  during  the  campaign 349 

Factors  effecting  the  result 350 

Furloughs  for  the  soldiers 351 

Result  of  the  election 352 

The  Tammany  and  Mozart  machines  defeated  in  the  New  York 

City  charter  election 353 

CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  LEGISLATIVE  SESSION  OF  1864 

Governor  Seymour's  annual  message  of  1864    .   -       355 

Criticism  of  the  message 358 

Seymour's  position  compared  with  that  of  the  Woods 359 

Character  and  composition  of  the  Legislature  of  1864 359 

Constitutional  amendment  and  law  to  enable  soldiers  to  vote  .   .    •  360 

Party  debates  over  the  appropriation  for  the  militia 361 

Question  of  legalizing  bounty  debts 362 

National  versus  state  banks 363 

Interest  on  the  state  debt 366 

The  metropolitan  police  commission  bill 368 

Resolution  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  federal  constitution 

prohibiting  slavery 368 


2i  5]                                        CONTENTS  15 

PACK 

CHAPTER  XIV 
NEW  YORK  AND  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864 

The  Democratic  State  Convention   of  February,  1864,   to    elect 

delegates  to  the  national  convention 371 

Proposed  address  and  declaration  of  principles  of  Tammany  Hall  .  373 
Action  of  the  Unionists  of  New  York  on  the  question  of  endorsing 

Lincoln  for  a  renomination 374 

Activity  of  those  opposed  to  Lincoln            376 

New  York  at  the  Cleveland  convention 378 

The  Union  State  Convention  of  May,  1864,  to  elect  delegates  to 

the  national  convention 379 

The  State  Committee  of  War  Democrats 380 

New  York's  part  in  the  National  Union  Convention  at  Baltimore.  381 

Controversy  among  New  York  Unionists  after  the  convention  .  .  384 

Weed's  relations  with  Lincoln    . 389 

The  United  States  assistant  treasurership  at  New  York  City   ,   .   .  392 

Weed's  joy  at  Chase's  resignation 393 

The  New  York  custom-house  captured  by  the  Weed  men    ....  394 

The  Union  State  Convention  of  September,  1864 395 

Superior  strength  of  the  anti-Weed  men  in  the  convention  ....  397 
Activity  of  the  peace  advocates  among  New  York  Democrats  dur 
ing  the  summer  of  1864 397 

The  mass  peace  convention 399 

Movement  in  New  York  in  behalf  of  McClellan 401 

New  York  at  the  National  Democratic  Convention  of  1864  ....  403 

CHAPTER  XV 
THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY 

Danger  of  a  collision  between  the  federal  government  and  the  state 

administration  of  New  York  .  ' 407 

The  seizure  of  the  New  York  World  and  of  the  New  York  Journal 

of  Commerce ;  action  of  Seymour  ...  ....  408 

Refusal  of  the  Grand  Jury  to  indict  the  military  officers.  Further 

action  of  Seymour  and  of  Judge  Russel  .  409 

Seymour  and  the  call  for  hundred  days  men 410 

His  order  for  the  increase  of  the  militia.  John  A.  Green 412 

Renewal  of  friction  between  the  national  and  state  administrations 

over  the  draft 413 

The  Democratic  State  Convention  of  September,  1864 414 

Renomination  of  Seymour 417 


1 6  CONTENTS  [2I6 

PAGE 

Reception  of  the  presidential  nominations  in  New  York  State   .   .  419 

Effect  of  the  victories  of  the  army  and  navy 423 

The  War  Democrats  of  New  York 423 

Other  features  of  the  campaign  in  New  York ...  424 

Issues  of  the  canvass  in  this  State 425 

Threats  of  violence 432 

The  alleged  frauds  in  the  collection  of  the  soldiers'  votes 432 

Orders   issued   by  General    Dix   before   the   election;  Seymour's 

proclamation 436 

Exciting  incidents  at  the  close  of  the  campaign 438 

Result  of  the  election 439 

Conclusion 442 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  NEW  YORK  IN  1860 

IN  the  history  of  American  political  parties,  the  years 
from  1852  to  1868  form  a  transition  period,  a  time  of  dis 
integration  and  instability,  new  alignment  and  reorganiza 
tion.  The  causes  which  produced  these  results  in  the  coun 
try  generally  were  active  in  New  York  State ;  and  as  a  result, 
New  York  politics,  always  complicated,  were  during  these 
years  even  more  tangled  than  usual.  On  the  eve  of  the  Civil 
War,  each  of  the  great  parties  in  this  State  was  torn  by 
rival  factions  more  or  less  defined.  In  addition,  there  were 
the  various  unattached  fragments  of  former  political  or 
ganizations  then  but  recently  shattered.  So  it  was  that 
tremendous  as  the  effects  of  the  war  were,  it  produced  only 
a  momentary  unity  among  the  many  jarring  elements  pres 
ent  at  its  outbreak;  and  consequently,  factional  struggles 
formed  the  main  characteristic  of  party  politics  in  New 
York  State  during  the  war.  Where  unanimity  might  rea 
sonably  have  been  expected,  we  not  only  have  two  rival 
parties,  one  composed  of  supporters  of  the  national  admin 
istration  and  the  other  of  those  hostile  to  it,  but  each  of  these 
organizations  partly  paralyzed  by  continual  struggles  within. 

The  Republican  Party  in  1860  was  of  too  recent  birth  to 
have  crystallized  entirely.  Composed  of  heterogeneous  ele 
ments,  of  which  the  most  important,  the  former  Whigs  and 
the  former  Free-soil  Democrats,  had  no  bond  but  a  common 
attitude  on  the  slavery  question  and  had  recently  been  ac 
tively  opposed  on  other  issues,  the  resulting  discord  was 
especially  prominent  in  New  York.  That  portion  of  the 
«7]  I7 


!g          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [2i8 

party  which  was  of  Whig  antecedents  looked  upon  William 
H.  Seward  as  their  leader,  but  was  actively  generaled  by 
Thurlow  Weed,  aided  by  Henry  J.  Raymond.  As  is  well 
known,  Weed  was  devoted  to  Seward's  advancement.  On 
the  other  hand,  Seward  once  remarked,  "  Weed  is  Seward, 
and  Seward  is  Weed ;  each  approves  what  the  other  says  or 
does  "  j1  and  as  far  as  we  have  any  evidence,  this  statement 
was  true.  The  most  prominent  organs  of  this  faction  were 
Weed's  paper,  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  and  Raymond's 
New  York  Times.  The  anti-Seward  wing,  as  the  oppo 
nents  of  Weed  were  often  denominated  in  the  press,  was  for 
the  most  part  made  up  of  the  former  Free-soil  Democratic 
element,2  plus  Horace  Greeley.  The  other  leading  men  of 
this  faction  were  Lieutenant-Governor  Campbell,  a  man 
of  ability,  integrity,  and  independence,  who  appears  to 
have  been  a  serious  obstacle  to  the  execution  of  some  of 
Weed's  plans;3  David  Dudley  Field,  one  of  New  York's 
most  eminent  lawyers ;  George  Opdyke,  later  mayor  of  New 
York  City;  and  William  Cullen  Bryant,  poet  and  editor. 
All  of  these  four  men  were  former  Barnburners,  opposed 
to  corruption,  and  radicals  on  the  slavery  question.  The 
opponents  of  Weed  had  two  powerful  organs  in  Greeley's 

'"Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,"  Atlantic  Monthly,  April,  IQOQ,  p.  482. 
Weed  practically  said  the  same  (Weed,  Autobiography,  pp.  422-3). 

2  This  statement,  based  partly  on  an  examination  of  the  names  of  the 
leading  men  opposed  to  Weed  and  partly  upon  the  scattered  character- 
izationsof  newspaper  writers,  is  confirmed  by  Godwin '^Bryant,  ii,  p.  142. 

*  Herald,  Jan.  14,  26,  March  29,  1860;  Tribune,  Jan.  5,  1863.  Camp 
bell's  uprightness  was  alluded  to  from  time  to  time  by  the  correspond 
ents  of  both  the  Herald  and  the  Tribune-,  while  the  Argus,  politically 
opposed  to  him,  said  upon  his  retirement:  "Campbell's  integrity  in 
public  life  is  something  more  than  a  mere  passive  virtue.  He  has  re 
sisted  wrong  not  only  with  energy  and  courage,  but  with  forecast  and 
judgment.  He  has  not  awaited  the  approaches  of  public  corruption; 
but  he  has  gone  forth  armed  against  it,  to  defeat  it  ere  it  grew  strong  " 
{Argus,  Jan.  i,  1863). 


2ig]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  19 

Tribune  and  Bryant's  Post.  But  they  lacked  a  general  equal 
in  political  ability  to  Weed,  and  it  was  their  misfortune  to 
be  led  by  so  poor  a  politician  as  Greeley. 

The  existence  of  this  faction,  however,  served  to  temper 
the  sway  of  Weed.  Up  to  1860,  he  had  kept  firm  control 
over  his  party.  He  was  another  Warwick,  making  sena 
tors,  governors,  and  state  officers;  and  in  the  three  decades 
previous  to  that  year,  but  three  state  conventions  refused  to 
follow  his  lead.1  Speakers  of  the  assembly  had  been  wont 
to  consult  him  when  forming  their  committees.2  Those 
who  aspired  to  office  sought  his  influence.3  But  begin 
ning  about  1860,  the  anti-Weed  men  raised  their  heads.  In 
that  year,  they  had  possession  of  some  of  the  higher  state 
offices,  and  as  ex-officio  members  of  the  Canal  Board  4  had 
control  of  some  of  the  most  important  state  patronage.5  In 
the  state  Senate  of  1860,  the  Weed  slate  for  harbor-masters 
met  with  a  setback,  two  of  the  nominations  being  rejected 
at  first  because  of  the  defection  of  seven  Republican  mem 
bers  and  the  casting  vote  of  the  Lieutenant-Governor;  and 
they  were  confirmed  later  only  because  of  the  repentance  of 
three  of  the  rebels  and  the  aid  of  some  of  the  Democrats.6 

1  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  258. 

2  Letter  of  Weed  to  the  editors  of  the  Albany  Argus,  April  10,  1863. 

3  Weed,  Autobiography,  p.  584. 

4  The  canal  board  consisted  of  the  lieutenant-governor,  the  secretary 
of   state,  the  controller,  the  state  treasurer,  the  attorney-general,  the 
state  engineer  and  surveyor,  and  three  canal  commissioners. 

5  Herald,  March  9,  May  7,  1860.     This  was  confirmed  by  the  Argus 
of  Jan.  16,  1861,  which  said  that  Bruce  would  be  the  "  sole  representa 
tive  of  Sevvard  Whig  Republicanism  in  the  Canal  Board."     An  idea  of 
the  extent  of  this  patronage  may  be  gained  by  a  list  of  appointments 
made  in  1864;  this  included  36  collectors,  10  inspectors  and  measurers, 
6  weighmasters,  5  superintendents  for  the  Erie  Canal,  7  superintend 
ents  for  the  other  canals.     Tribune,  Jan.  28,  1864. 

6 Herald,  Feb.  3,  9,  16,  March  29;  Argus,   Feb.   I,  9,  16;  Tribune, 
Feb.  9. 


JO          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [22O 

Then  came  the  Chicago  convention,  accompanied  by  a  ser 
ious  revolt  against  Weed  and  ending  in  disaster  for  him. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  war,  Weed's  influence  had  passed 
its  zenith.  An  examination  of  a  list  of  names  of  those 
raised  to  high  office,  who  Weed  in  after  years  declared  had 
been  upon  his  slate,  shows  that  his  power  in  that  direction 
suffered  a  great  decline  with  the  beginning  of  the  period 
here  treated ;  *  and  further  evidences  of  this  will  appear  in 
the  course  of  the  narrative.  In  fact,  the  political  history 
here  set  forth  is  largely  concerned  with  the  active,  bitter,  and 
more  or  less  successful  attempt  to  overthrow  him. 

What  was  the  nature  of  Weed's  power  ?  He  was  a  man 
who  never  spoke  in  public,2  content  to  distribute  the  spoils 
without  taking  office  for  himself,  a  natural  politician,  evi 
dently  not  overscrupulous,  but  of  great  magnetism  in  per 
sonal  contact.  In  1860,  he  impressed  Samuel  Bowles  of 
the  Springfield  Republican,  as  "  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
men  of  our  time — one  whom  I  had  rather  have  had  such  an 
interview  with  than  with  any  president  of  our  day  and  gen 
eration."  Weed's  genius  for  organization,  which  even  an 
enemy  4  had  to  admit,  his  usually  sure  judgment  in  regard 
to  men  and  measures,  and  his  "  mystery  and  secretiveness 
that  neither  wine  nor  passion  ever  betrayed,"  5  all  contributed 
to  make  him  the  greatest  political  strategist  of  his  day. 
Unlike  in  these  respects,  both  Greeley  and  Weed  had  found 
in  the  newspaper  office  a  school  wherein  each  acquired  a 
knowledge  of  affairs,  ability  to  think,  and  a  capacity  to 
write  clear,  incisive  English;  and  Weed's  rise  was  perhaps 

1  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  473. 
"Weed,  Autobiography,  p.  172. 
'Merriam's  Life  of  Bowles,  i,  p.  302. 

4  Open  letter  of  Samuel  Wilkeson,  assailing  Weed,   printed   in  the 
Tribune,  April  i,  1861. 


22 1  ]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  21 

the  more  wonderful  in  that  his  early  poverty  and  lack  of 
facilities  for  obtaining  an  education  were  even  greater  than 
Greeley's.1  It  was  because  of  this  training  that  Weed  was 
able  to  create  the  very  great  influence  which  the  Albany 
Evening  Journal  exercised  over  the  up-state  press,2  forming 
an  important  element  in  his  power. 

Then  too,  in  choosing  candidates,  Weed  paid  such  shrewd 
regard  to  availability  and  party  strength  that,  once  estab 
lished,  he  had  retained  the  prerogative  of  slate-making  for 
years.  Weed,  like  feebler  bosses  of  later  times,  knew  how  to 
work  secretly  with  his  nominal  opponents.  He  himself  has 
left  an  account  of  one  of  his  earliest  successes  in  the  way 
of  obtaining  desired  legislation  in  the  face  of  great  ob 
stacles,  from  which  it  appears  that  the  bill  went  through 
because  of  the  close  personal  and  social  relations  which  he 
held  with  the  legislators  irrespective  of  party.3  Dean  Rich 
mond,  the  leading  Democratic  politician,  was  Weed's  warm 
friend.4  At  an  annual  series  of  dinners,  Weed  entertained 

'Weed,  Autobiography,  pp.  i,  2. 

2  "  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,"  Atlantic  Monthly,  Sept.,  IQOQ,  p.  357. 

3  Weed,  Autobiography,  pp.  105,106.  Greeley  understood  that  the  Dem 
ocratic  managers  also  were  to  get  something  in  case  Weed's  plan  of 
raising  campaign  funds  out  of  railroad  grants  went  through,  and  pointed 
to  the  large  support  given  by  the  Democrats  in  the  Legislature  of  1860 
to  the  bills  as  evidence  of  this  (Tribune,  Sept.  30,  1861).     During  the 
period  here  treated,  there  are  other  traces  of  secret  dealings  between 
Weed  and  the  Democrats.     There    seems  to  be  some  evidence  that 
Weed  worked  with  Dean  Richmond  to  protect  the  New  York  Central 
Railroad.     He  was  accused  of  conspiring  with  the  New  York  Central 
managers  to  secure  the  repeal  of  the  tolls  upon  railroads,  of  making 
money  through  operations  in  New  York  Central  stock,  of  accepting 
from  the  road  a  commission  upon  passengers  sent  over  the  line  from 
the  emigrant  depot  in  New  York  City,  and  of  sharing  in  the  profits  of 
the  printing  patronage  of  the  Central — all  this  by  Wilkeson,  who  had 
once  been  Weed's    business    associate.      (Letter  of   Wilkeson   in    the 
Tribune,  April  I,  1861). 

4  Weed,  Autobiography,  p.  492. 


22          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [222 

the  members  of  the  legislature,  regardless  of  party,1  and  he 
boasted  that  he  was  personally  acquainted  with  each  and 
every  member  of  that  body  for  over  thirty  years.2 

Weed's  enemies  accused  him  of  corruption.  He  him 
self  admitted  that  there  had  "  scarcely  been  a  session  of  the 
Legislature  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  out  of 
which,  if  we  had  chosen  to  do  so,  a  large  amount  of  money 
could  not  have  been  made."  3  But  he  also  said,  "  During 
the  more  than  thirty  years  that  we  have  been  connected  with 
this  Journal  ...  no  pecuniary  consideration — no  hope  of 
favor  or  reward — ha»*  tempted  us  to  support  a  measure 
which  did  not  commend  itself  to  our  judgment  and  con 
science,  or  to  oppose  a  meritorious  one."  Again,  we  find 
Weed  privately  unburdening  himself  to  Seward  with  refer 
ence  to  the  charges  made  by  Mr.  Van  Wyke  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  :5 

It  is  hard  to  be  abused  for  doing  right.  I  chartered  the 
vessels  that  took  the  first  troops  to  Washington,  leaving  Grin- 
nell  and  Comstock  to  fix  the  charter,  and  without  a  thought  of 
interest,  or  receiving  the  value  of  a  cigar.  I  helped  Smith, 
of  Ulster,  to  get  a  powder  order  without  the  thought  of  a 
commission  or  even  thanks,  but  I  did  not  expect  abuse ! 6 

Frequent  as  these  accusations  against  Weed  were,  we  must 
at  least  say  that  in  the  absence  of  better  evidence,  his  specific 
and  emphatic  denials  are  of  great  weight  in  clearing  him 
in  this  respect.  But  he  acknowledged  that  "  there  have  been 

1  Herald,  Feb.  29,  1860;  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  232. 
3  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  502. 

'Albany  Evening  Journal,  Aug.  27,  1860.  *Ibid. 

5  Tribune,  Feb.  8,  1862. 

"Letter  of  Weed  to  Seward  in  F.  W.  Seward's  Seward  at  Washing 
ton,  iii,  p.  75. 


223  ]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  23 

legislative  measures,  right  in  themselves,  and  promotive 
of  the  general  welfare,  in  which  we  have  had,  in  common 
with  other  citizens,  ultimate  or  prospective  interests.  In 
this  category  belong  New  York  city  railroads."  *  Thus,  Mr. 
Weed  was  to  some  extent  a  commercialist  in  politics. 

Of  the  truth  of  another  variety  of  accusations,  there  can 
be  little  doubt.  This  was  that  Weed  collected  contributions 
for  the  party  treasury  from  those  desirous  of  furthering  or 
opposing  particular  legislation.  To  the  allegation  that  the 
notorious  city  railroad  bills  had  been  passed  through  an 
agreement  between  Weed  and  the  lobby  by  which  the  latter 
were  to  deliver  to  Weed  the  funds  for  the  presidential  cam 
paign,2  Weed  confessed: 

Obnoxious  as  the  admission  is  to  a  just  sense  of  right  and  to  a 
better  condition  of  political  ethics,  we  stand  so  far  "  im 
peached  ".  We  would  have  preferred  not  to  disclose  to  public 
view  the  financial  history  of  political  life.  .  .  .  Public  men 
know  much  of  what  "  the  rest  of  mankind  "  are  ignorant.  We 
suppose  it  is  generally  understood  that  party  organizations  cost 
money  and  that  presidential  elections  especially  are  expensive. 
...  It  has  been  our  duty  and  task  for  nearly  forty  years  to 
raise  money  for  elections.  .  .  .  Believing  that  railroads  were 
essential  to  the  City  of  New  York,  and  that  legislative  grants 
for  them  would  be  obtained,  we  conceived  and  attempted  to 
carry  out  the  idea  of  making  these  grants  available  politically.3 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  August  27,  1860. 

'This  charge  was  made  by  Greeley's  counsel,  J.  L.  Williams,  in  his 
opening  speech  for  the  defense  in  the  Littlejohn  libel  suit  (printed  in 
the  Tribune,  Sept.  16,  1861). 

'Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  21,  1861.  Greeley,  however,  said 
that  "neither  the  Democratic  nor  the  Republican  party  treasury  re 
ceived  one  dollar  from  this  source,"  and  that  the  pretext  was  only  a 
4 Mure  for  the  -votes  of  political  zealots"  (Tribune,  Sept.  30,  1861). 
The  Albany  Statesman  (anti-Weed  Republican)  published  the  follow 
ing,  which  the  editor  said  was  written  by  a  Republican  state  senator: 


24          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [224 

If,  however,  Weed  was  like  party  managers  of  all  ages  in 
that  the  corner-stone  of  his  power  lay  in  the  patronage,  if 
he  merely  anticipated  the  modern  boss  in  his  manipulation 
of  legislation  for  party  purposes,  there  yet  remained  some 
thing  in  the  personal  qualities  which  have  been  dwelt  upon 
above,  which  distinguished  him  from  the  ordinary  American 
politician. 

The  Republicans  were  far  more  united  in  1860  than  were 
their  adversaries.  The  factional  struggles  within  the  Demo 
cratic  ranks  in  New  York  State  were  at  this  time  deep- 
seated,  of  some  years'  existence,  and  apparently  incurable.1 
In  the  case  of  the  Republicans,  lines  of  cleavage  were  poten 
tial  rather  than  actually  present;  while  three  rival  Demo 
cratic  forces,  definitely  organized,  contended  with  one  an 
other,  or  two  in  alliance  against  a  third ;  and  bolts  had 
become  the  regular  order  of  the  day. 

First,  there  was  the  regular  state  organization,  led  by  the 
Albany  Regency,  a  degenerate  descendant  of  the  famous 
clique  of  Van  Buren  and  Marcy.  Its  power  lay  wholly  in 
the  up-state  districts  as  distinguished  from  New  York  City, 
and  seems  to  have  been  partly  due  to  an  intimate  alliance 
with  what  was  probably  the  most  important  corporation  of 
the  State,  the  New  York  Central  Railroad.  The  rule  of  the 
Regency  was  hated  by  many.  The  accusations  against  this 
group,  of  trickery,  treachery,  playing  with  loaded  dice,  and 

"I  know  I  voted  for  bills  last  winter  that  my  conscience  did  not  ap 
prove,  .  .  .  But  in  no  case  did  I  vote  for  a  questionable  bill,  unless 
solicited  to  do  so  by  party  leaders,  upon  the  plea  that  those  to  be  bene 
fited  by  such  bills  would  contribute  to  the  fund  of  the  Republican  State 
Committee,  ...  I  can  name  more  than  one  instance  in  which  Mr. 
Weed  has  solicited  me  to  vote  for  bills  for  such  reasons"  (Quoted  by 
the  Argus,  Aug.  21,  1860).  For  an  interesting  description  of  Weed's 
methods,  see  a  letter  of  Lieutenant-Governor  Campbell  to  Salmon  P. 
Chase,  quoted  in  Hart's  Chase,  pp.  185-87. 
1  For  the  origin  of  these  divisions,  see  Bancroft's  Seward,  i,  p.i35»  3^8. 


225  ]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  25 

selling  their  power,  were  common  from  Democrats  as  well 
as  from  Republicans.  The  principal  Regency  leader  in  1860 
was  Dean  Richmond,  vice-president  of  the  New  York  Cen 
tral  Railroad  and  chairman  of  the  Democratic  State  Com 
mittee.  A  correspondent  described  him  as  a  thick-set,  cor 
pulent  man,  with  a  large,  red,  and  Dutch-looking  face,  and 
a  very  prominent  nose.1  Richmond,  like  Thurlow  Weed, 
had  had  no  educational  advantages  in  early  life  and  was 
self-made.  He,  too,  was  a  shrewd,  practical  politician  who 
refused  office  and  never  spoke  in  public.2  Indeed,  he  was 
said  to  have  been  unable  to  express  himself  grammatically 
in  private  conversation.3  More  than  one  noted  his  liberal 
use  of  profanity.  Weed  and  Richmond  evidently  looked 
upon  each  other  in  a  sympathetic  light;  for  in  1860  Weed 
rendered  this  tribute  to  his  rival  and  incidentally  to  him 
self:  "The  secret  of  his  [Richmond's]  power,  next  to  his 
intuitive  knowledge,  consists  in  his  prominent  disinterested 
ness  .  .  .  through  more  than  thirty  annual  campaigns, 
...  he  has  neither  asked  nor  accepted  anything  in  re 
turn.  Such  patriotism,  coupled  with  the  almost  unerring 
wisdom  of  his  counsels,  gives  him  great,  controlling,  and 
permanent  power."  4  Others  who  made  up  the  more  or  less 
shadowy  body  known  as  the  Regency  were  Erastus  Corn 
ing,  a  wealthy  iron  manufacturer  and  the  president  of  the 
New  York  Central;  Peter  Cagger,  a  lawyer  and  the  sec 
retary  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee ;  William  Cassidy, 
editor  of  the  Regency  organ,  the  Albany  Atlas  and  Argus, 

1  Herald,  Feb.  25,  1860.     A  description  in  the  World,  June  20,  1860, 
agrees  with  the  particulars  given  above. 

*  Herald,  Nov.  24,  1860;  Tribune,  Aug.  20,  1864. 

3  New  York  World,  June  20,  1860. 

4  Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  20,  1860.     It  can  be  easily  seen  from 
V/eed's  Autobiography  that  he  prided  himself  on  the  possession  of  the 
same  merits  which  he  praises  in  Richmond. 


26          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [226 

and  a  brother-in-law  of  Cagger;  and  ex-Governor  Horatio 
Seymour. 

Then  there  was  Tammany  Hall,  the  regular  local  Demo 
cratic  organization  in  New  York  City,  yet,  because  of  its 
relative  weight  and  its  jealousy  of  the  Regency,  deserving  at 
that  time  to  be  reckoned  as  a  second  faction  within  the 
Democratic  party.  Tammany,  nevertheless,  was  not  then 
the  power  that  it  once  had  been  or  that  it  was  to  be  in  the 
future.  At  the  beginning  of  1860  its  principal  leader  and 
grand  sachem  was  Postmaster  Isaac  V.  Fowler,  whom 
even  the  Tribune  could  speak  of  as  "  personally  popular 
among  all  parties  as  a  genial,  gentlemanly,  and  liberal- 
minded  man."  1  Educated  at  Columbia  College  and  for 
years  a  leading  lawyer  and  a  prominent  member  of  the 
"  soft-shell  "  Democracy,  he  was  appointed  postmaster  in 
1853;  but  in  May,  1860,  a  defalcation  of  over  $150,000  on 
his  part  was  detected,  and  he  absconded.2  After  Fowler's 
fall,  the  control  of  the  organization  was  obtained  by  such 
spoilsmen  as  Purdy,  Genet,  and  Boole,  who  so  far  as  political 
capacity  was  concerned  were  far  inferior  to  the  triumvirate 
of  Fowler,  Fernando  Wood,  and  Daniel  E.  Sickles,  which 
had  but  a  few  years  before  ruled  Tammany.3  In  1860  and 
the  years  succeeding  Tammany  had  no  "  boss,"  but  was 
distracted  by  struggles  between  those  connected  with  a  cor 
rupt  aldermanic  ring  and  those  not  having  that  lucrative 
advantage.4  William  M.  Tweed,  George  Barnard,  and 

1  Tribune,  May  15,  1860.  ' Herald,  May  15,  1860. 

'Elijah  F.  Purdy  was  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors;  Henry 
W.  Genet  was  an  alderman,  the  county  clerk,  and  the  controller  of  the 
street  department;  for  Boole,  infra.  During  the  latter  years  here 
dealt  with,  however,  Tweed  and  Sweeney  seem  to  have  been  the  great 
est  powers  in  Tammany. 

4  Tribune,  Oct.  6,  1862.  Article  dealing  with  the  struggle  between 
the  Genet  and  Boole  factions. 


227]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  27 

Peter  B.  Sweeney  were  already  becoming  prominent  in  its 
councils.  At  the  end  of  the  period  here  considered,  Tweed 
was  president  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  deputy  street 
cleaning  commissioner,  referee  for  Judge  Barnard,  member 
of  the  county  volunteering  committee,  commissioner  for 
opening  streets,  contractor  for  supplying  furniture  to  the 
City,  fire  commissioner,  and  chairman  of  the  Tammany 
Hall  General  Committee.1 

While  some  of  the  patronage  in  the  metropolis  was  con 
trolled  by  the  Republicans,  the  City  Hall  in  1860  was  pos 
sessed  by  Tammany's  most  bitter  opponent,  Mozart  Hall. 
This  third  Democratic  power,  against  which  the  other  two 
were  often  found  in  alliance,  was  the  creation  and  the 
creature  of  Fernando  Wood,  the  most  infamous  of  New  York 
City's  mayors — unless  this  distinction  belongs  to  Oakley  Hall. 
Wood  was  born  in  Philadelphia.  Eventually  he  came  to 
New  York  and  engaged  in  various  pursuits — keeping  a  wine 
and  cigar  shop,  then  becoming  an  auctioneer,  then  a  ship- 
chandler,  and  later  a  grocer.2  Devoting  himself  largely 
to  politics,  he  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1840,  and  after 
rising  so  far  in  Know  Nothing  circles  as  to  have  been  a 
candidate  for  that  party's  mayoralty  nomination,  he  became 
a  leading  member  of  Tammany.3  Nominated  for  mayor 
on  the  Democratic  ticket  in  1850,  he  was  defeated;  but  in 
1854  and  again  in  1856,  he  was  successful.  After  his  scan 
dalous  attempt  to  control  the  police,4  Wood  was  defeated  for 
a  second  re-election.  Then,  unable  to  rule  Tammany,  he 
set  up  an  organization  of  his  own,  Mozart  Hall,  of  which 

1  Tribune,  Jan.  9,  1864. 

"Longworth's  New  York  Directory,  1832-1840  inclusive. 
*  Tribune,  Nov.  i,  1862;  Myers'  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  p.  179. 
*See  Wilson's  Memorial  History  of  the  City  of  New  York,  iii,  pp. 
456  7- 


2g          XEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [228 

he  was  in  our  present-day  sense  the  boss  ;*  and  in  the  three- 
cornered  contest  of  1859  Wood  was  again  chosen  mayor. 
By  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  he  was  a  past  master  of 
practical  politics  in  the  worst  meaning  of  the  term.2  Able, 
energetic,  ambitious,  and  unscrupulous,  tall,  handsome,  and 
of  pleasing  manners,  Fernando  Wood  built  up  Mozart  Hall 
until  it  had  in  a  few  years  become  a  formidable  rival  of 
Tammany.  In  this,  he  was  assisted  by  his  brother  Ben 
jamin,  who  edited  the  Daily  News  and  at  the  same  time 
carried  on  an  extensive  lottery  business.  Included  in  Mo 
zart's  following  seems  to  have  been  a  large  number  of  Irish, 
the  foreign  born  generally,  and  lastly,  the  disreputable 
class.3  It  was  not  merely  Wood's  official  action  in  his  vio 
lent  effort  to  secure  the  police  force  that  aligned  in  opposi 
tion  to  him  the  best  elements  of  the  city,  and  practically 
the  entire  metropolitan  press  other  than  the  Herald  and  his 
brother's  paper.4  It  was  alleged  that  in  his  earlier  days 
Wood  had  swindled  his  brother-in-law,  one  Marvin,  and 
that  when  indicted  for  felony,  he  escaped  through  the  statute 
of  limitations.  Moral  proof  of  his  guilt  was  seen  by  his 
opponents  in  the  fact  that  judgment  against  him  was  ren 
dered  in  a  civil  suit  and  confirmed  on  appeal.5  Of  Wood's 

1 1  have  not  come  across  any  use  during  the  period  here  treated  of  the 
word  "boss"  in  a  political  sense.  Breen,  Thirty  Years  of  New  York 
Politics,  p.  31,  confirms  this  observation,  saying  that  the  term  was  first 
so  applied  when  the  Tweed  ring  was  at  the  height  of  its  power. 

2  Myers'  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  pp.  179,  209. 

'Letter  cf  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  written  in  December,  1859,  saying  that 
Wood  ''had  gained  the  lower  stratum  of  the  Irish,  combined  with 
many  special  interests,  and  at  last  the  aid  of  jobbing  Republicans" 
(Tilden's  Letters,  i,  pp.  126-128).  See  also  Tribune,  Jan.  4,  1860; 
Myers'  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  pp.  179,  330. 

4  Extract  from  the  Sunday  Atlas,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Dec.  2, 
1861.  At  that  time,  the  News  had  been  suppressed,  so  that  the  Herald 
alone  supported  Wood  for  re-election. 

6 Tribune,  Nov.  i,  1862. 


229]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  29 

last  administration  of  the  city  government,  it  is  enough  to 
mention  here  a  letter  signed  by  three  successive  foremen  of 
grand  juries,  wherein  permission  was  requested  of  the  dis 
trict  attorney  for  the  publication  of  evidence  taken  before 
those  bodies,  tending  to  prove  that  before  Wood  as  mayor 
would  approve  of  the  valuable  street  cleaning  contract,  it 
was  an  indispensable  condition  that  one  quarter  of  the  con 
tract  should  be  given  to  his  brother  Benjamin,  and  that  the 
latter  was  the  owner  of  one-fourth  of  the  then  existing  con 
tract.  According  to  the  district  attorney's  reply,  confirming 
these  assertions  and  appending  the  evidence,  the  contract 
was  awarded  at  the  rate  of  $279,000  a  year  although  a  re 
sponsible  person  bid  $84,000  less.1 

Wood  had  up-state  allies.  The  schism  in  the  Democratic 
party  in  New  York  State  began  in  1848;  healed  in  the  fol 
lowing  year,  the  breach  was  again  opened  in  1853,  and  re 
mained  so  until  1856.  At  the  state  convention  of  1859, 
when  delegates  to  the  forthcoming  National  Democratic 
Convention  were  chosen,  the  climax  came.  Wood  having 
tried  by  the  aid  of  a  select  Mozart  crowd  to  get  control 
of  the  convention  by  a  trick  and  by  violence,  the  dele 
gates  withdrew  from  the  hall,  and  later  proceeded  to  or 
ganize.  In  this  latter  or  "  regular  "  convention,  all  but  two 
delegates  eventually  participated.  But  Wood,  with  the  aid 
of  some  up-state  politicians,  mostly  former  "  hard-shells  " 
who  hated  the  rule  of  the  Regency,  set  up  a  rival  conven- 

1  Letter  signed  by  Messrs.  Bailey,  Reading,  and  Cooper  to  Nelson  J. 
Waterbury,  District  Attorney,  and  reply  of  Waterbury,  printed  in  the 
Tribune,  Nov.  30,  1861.  Waterbury  was  a  prominent  member  of  Tam 
many,  and  the  correspondence  together  with  the  publication  of  the  evi 
dence  on  the  eve  of  the  mayoralty  election  was  a  partisan  move.  Never 
theless,  in  connection  with  other  parts  of  Wood's  record,  the  matter 
seems  to  incriminate  Wood  strongly.  For  other  details  of  Wood's 
trickery  in  local  politics,  see  Breen's  Thirty  Years  of  New  York  Poli 
tics,  pp.  79  81. 


30         NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [230 

tion.1  At  the  opening  of  the  year  1860,  the  great  question 
in  the  politics  of  the  State  was,  would  the  Charleston  con 
vention  seat  in  whole  or  in  part  Wood's  contesting  dele-t 
gates.  Wood  had  intimate  connections  with  prominent 
Southern  leaders  and  called  his  Democracy  national,  while 
most  of  the  Regency  leaders  and  the  greater  part  of  their 
followers  were  ex-barnburners  2  and  favorable  to  Douglas. 
Moreover,  Wood  had  recently  been  chosen  mayor  of  New 
York  City  in  opposition  to  Havemeyer,  a  "  soft  " ;  and  in 
the  selection  of  delegates,  he  had  adopted  the  more  popular- 
plan  of  elections  by  congressional  districts.8 

Yet  the  organ  of  the  Regency  persisted  in  belittling  the 
Wood  movement,  and  spoke  of  the  "bolting  delegations 
being  appointed  under  Fernando  Wood's  dictation  by  little 
knots  of  disorganizes."  It  insisted  that  there  was  "  really 
no  contest  in  question,  except  what  originated  in  ruffianism," 
and  that  the  Democrats  of  New  York  State  must  be  per 
mitted  to  manage  their  own  organization.  It  denounced 
from  day  to  day  the  Wood  delegation  as  "  bogus  ",  and  as- 

1  Argus,  Jan.  n,  1860.  This,  of  course,  gives  the  Regency's  side  of 
the  affair;  but  it  is  confirmed  by  Andrew  D.  White's  Autobiography,  i, 
p.  59;  also  by  the  facts  that  nearly  all  the  delegates  went  over  to  the  regu 
lar  convention  and  that  Daniel  S.  Dickinson— no  friend  of  the  Regency 
— denounced  the  attempt  of  Wood.  The  other  side  of  the  story  is  given 
in  a  speech  of  Thomas  G.  Alvord  before  the  committee  on  contested 
seats  at  Charleston  (Argus,  May  i,  1860,  quoting  the  Charleston 
Courier) . 

z  Tribune,  Aug.  9,  1860. 

3 Herald,  Jan.  16,  1860;  Argus,  Jan.  11,  1860.  That  the  district  sys 
tem  was  far  more  popular  was  shown  by  extracts  from  Democratic 
papers  throughout  the  State,  published  in  the  Argus  during  January, 
1860.  These,  while  deprecating  any  movement  toward  a  double  dele 
gation,  distinctly  stated  that  they  favored  the  district  system.  With 
one  exception  (1852),  however,  delegates  to  national  Democratic  con 
ventions  had  been  chosen  in  New  York  by  state  conventions  (Argus, 
Jan.  17,  1860). 


231]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  ^ 

serted  that  outside  of  New  York  City,  there  were  not  five 
hundred  men  engaged  in  the  Wood  movement.1  One  must 
note,  however,  that  by  no  means  all  the  "  hards  "  went  over 
to  Wood.  The  latter  himself  had  been  a  "  soft  "  in  1853. 
Accordingly,  the  Regency  organ  claimed  that  the  attempts 
to  represent  the  old  division  between  "  hards  "  and  "  softs  " 
as  still  continuing  in  1860  were  made  for  mischievous  pur 
poses.2  But  even  if  this  contention  was  true,  hatred  of  the 
Regency  upon  the  part  of  the  former  "hards"  still  ex 
isted,  and  was  the  connecting  line  between  the  two  factional 
struggles.  Thus,  the  animosities  within  the  New  York 
Democracy  were  partly  due  to  jealousy  among  the  leaders 
and  greed  for  the  offices,  and  partly  an  outgrowth  of  the 
old  divisions  between  "  hards  "  and  "  softs  ". 

There  were  also  then  in  New  York  State  various  unat 
tached  political  odds  and  ends.  In  the  previous  year,  the 
American  party,  with  what  was  called  a  balance-of-power 
ticket  or  one  composed  of  candidates  selected  from  those 
of  the  two  principal  parties,  had  actually  carried  the  State, 
and  the  recentness  of  this  success  caused  some  designing 
politicians  to  look  to  these  fragments  as  a  lever  for  personal 
advantage.3  At  the  beginning  of  1860  there  still  existed  in 
New  York  City  a  Whig  General  Committee.  This  met  and 
drew  up  an  address  in  favor  of  the  organization  of  the 
Whigs  throughout  the  State  ;4  but  as  the  address  itself  con- 

1  Argus,  Jan.  n,  24,  Feb.  8,  9,  22,  27.  From  day  to  day  it  published 
letters  stating  that  the  Wood  county  conventions  were  so  poorly  at 
tended  as  to  be  farcical;  e.  g.,  Jan.  17,  24,  25,  30,  Feb.  7.  Per  contra, 
the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  10,  said  that  the  Albany  district  con 
vention  was  very  fully  attended. 

2 Argus,  Jan.  n,  1860. 

3  Privately  circulated  call,  signed  by  Erastus  Brooks  and  four  others, 
committee,  dated  Jan.  28,  1860,  printed  in  the  Herald,  Feb.  15. 

4  Herald,  Jan.  19. 


32  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [332 

fessed,  the  party  had  slumbered  for  the  past  few  years  and 
its  organization  was  nearly  destroyed.  The  remnant  of  the 
American  party  showed  more  vitality,  especially  in  con 
nection  with  the  movement  which  resulted  in  the  nomination 
of  Bell  and  Everett. 

At  the  beginning  of  1860,  the  Republicans  had  control  of 
most  of  the  state  patronage  through  their  possession  of  the 
gubernatorial  chair  and  of  three  of  the  five  most  important 
state  offices;  they  likewise  had  a  two-thirds  majority  in 
both  branches  of  the  legislature,1  both  the  United  States 
senators,  and  a  majority  of  the  congressional  delegation. 
The  national  patronage  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  Demo 
crats.  The  opposition  to  the  Regency  in  the  up-state  coun 
ties  was  too  weak  to  render  it  doubtful  that  the  followers 
of  the  Regency  held  the  federal  offices  in  the  greater  part 
of  the  State. 

In  New  York  City,  the  much-prized  collectorship  was 
occupied  by  Augustus  Schell,  who  was  a  "  hard  ",  yet  ap 
parently  not  acting  at  this  time  with  Wood.2  The  latter, 
elected  on  the  Mozart  or  National  Democratic  ticket  in  op 
position  to  Havemeyer  on  the  Tammany  and  Opdyke  on 
the  Republican  ticket,  was  mayor.  His  power  over  the  city 
patronage,  however,  was  checked  by  a  hostile  common  coun 
cil  which  again  and  again  rejected  his  nominations;3  the 
heads  of  the  street  cleaning  and  city  inspector's  departments, 
under  which  lay  the  bulk  of  the  municipal  spoils,  had  yet  a 

1  Argus,  Jan.  2;  Herald,  Jan.  i.  The  Assembly  contained  90  Re 
publicans,  37  Democrats,  and  I  Independent.  De  Witt  C.  Littlejohn 
was  elected  speaker  with  no  opposition  in  his  own  party,  receiving  89 
votes  to  30  for  Theophilus  C.  Callicot  (Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan. 
3).  The  Senate  consisted  of  23  Republicans  and  9  Democrats. 

1  Schell  removed  a  custom-house  official  for  not  resigning  his  place 
as  a  Wood  delegate  to  Charleston  (Tribune,  Mar.  19). 

3  Tribune,  Jan.  2,  25;  Herald,  Feb.  4,  Mar.  i,  17,  April  10. 


233]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  33 

year  of  office,  and  they,  as  well  as  other  heads  of  depart 
ments  except  the  controller  and  the  corporation  counsel, 
both  of  whom  were  elected,  were  irremovable  except  with 
the  consent  of  the  board  of  alderman  and  for  cause ; *  the 
police  were  wholly  without  the  mayor's  power  and  were 
governed  by  a  metropolitan  police  board ;  finally,  the  board 
of  supervisors,  a  bi-partisan  body,  exercised  legislative  and 
executive  functions  over  county  matters.2  Wood  himself 
said  in  his  annual  message  of  1860:  "Under  the  present 
laws,  it  makes  little  difference  who  occupies  the  mayoralty. 
That  functionary  is  but  a  clerk.  .  .  ."  3  Attempts  at  re 
form  were  made.  A  charter  amendment,  which  was  con 
sidered  in  the  legislature,  provided  for  centralizing  power 
in  the  mayor,  the  controller,  and  the  corporation  counsel, 
and  for  depriving  the  aldermen  of  the  right  to  confirm  or 
reject  nominations;  but  the  aldermen  successfully  fought 
the  proposition.4  Thus,  the  struggle  of  Wood  against  Tam 
many  and  the  Regency  was  an  up-hill  one. 

The   state   government   was   already   notorious    for   its 
vicious  features.     The  Legislature  of  1860  gained  an  unen- 

l<<  By  his  [the  mayor's]  own  authority,  he  cannot  remove  any  per 
son  holding  office  under  the  city  government,  except  a  few  clerks  in 
his  own  office."— Wood's  annual  message,  Herald,  Feb.  i,  1860.  A 
decision  of  the  state  Supreme  Court  implied  that  it  was  within  the  dis 
cretion  of  the  mayor  and  the  aldermen  to  decide  what  was  cause  for  re 
moval  for  all  heads  of  departments  save  the  two  elective  ones  (Herald, 
June  16,  1860).  But  this  decision  did  not  increase  the  mayor's  power 
when  he  was  confronted  with  a  hostile  board  of  aldermen. 

2  The  supervisors  expended  about  one-third  of  the  city  budget  (  Tribune, 
Jan.  2,  1860). 

3 Annual  message  of  Wood,  printed  in  the  Herald,  Feb.  i,  1860. 
Mayors  Opdyke  and  Gunther,  the  immediate  successors  of  Wood,  made 
similar  complaints. 

*  fnfra,  p.  46. 


34          MEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [234 

viable  reputation  because  of  the  jobs  passed  in  that  year.1 
The  Albany  Evening  Journal  pronounced  the  testimony 
taken  before  a  grand  jury  concerning  the  corrupt  doings 
in  the  Legislature  of  1861  a  "  sickening  expose ",  and 
further  said :  "  It  presents  a  dark  picture  of  the  processes 
employed  to  secure  legislative  action  upon  important  bills. 
.  .  ."  "  Now  to  be  a  member  of  the  State  Legislature," 
said  Mr.  Pierce  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  in  1862,  "  is 
an  impeachment  of  a  man's  standard  of  honesty."  Henry 
J.  Raymond  gave  utterance  to  similar  sentiments.4  The 
lobby  was  estimated  as  more  numerous  than  either  of  the 
legislative  houses.5  In  Gideon  Welles'  opinion,  this  feature 
at  Albany  was  "  the  most  offensive  lobby  combination  of 
that  date."  6  Greeley  wrote: 

We  reported  the  proceedings  of  the  Assembly  through  a  good 
part  of  the  session  of  '38,  without  making  the  acquaintance 
of  any  person  who  made  a  gainful  business  of  advocating  or 

opposing  the  passage  of  bills now  their  name  is 

Legion,  their  impudence  sublime,  ....  Some  of  them  are 
well  dressed,  dispense  real  champagne  and  will  touch  nothing 
under  $100;  others  are  seedy  suckers,  who  will  take  a  five 
dollars  [sic]  if  they  can  get  no  more. 

Greeley  also  recorded  his  belief  that  the  ability  of  the  legis 
lators,  as  shown  in  the  debates,  had  degenerated.7  The  Gov- 

1H.  B.  Stanton  to  Chase:  "New  York  Republicanism  has  been 
made  a  reproach,  a  by-word,  by  the  rascally  conduct  of  our  state  legis 
lature  under  the  lead  of  Weed"  (Hart's  Chase,  p.  185).  See  also 
Argus,  April  10,  1861. 

2  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  23,  1862. 

3 Herald,  Jan.  16,  1862;  Argus,  Jan.  16,  1862. 

4 Herald,  Jan.  24,  1862;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  24,  1862. 

*  Tribune,  Jan.  27,  1860. 

6  Welles'  Lincoln  and  Seward,  p.  27.        7  Tribune,  April  28,  1863. 


2351  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  o- 

ernor,  Edwin  D.  Morgan,  was  somewhat  better  than  the 
legislature,  and  used  his  veto  with  good  effect  j1  but  he  seems 
to  have  been  without  much  independence  where  Thurlow 
Weed  was  concerned. 

In  New  York  City,  the  robbery  which  came  to  a  culmi 
nation  ten  years  later,  was  already  present  in  a  startling 
degree.  The  ring  in  the  board  of  supervisors,  which  a  decade 
later  became  so  notorious,  was  already  in  existence,  having 
been  formed,  according  to  Tweed's  own  testimony,  about 
1859  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  in  the  interests  of 
Tammany  the  appointment  of  registry  clerks ;  and  from  that 
time,  the  corrupt  combination  operated  on  many  subjects 
that  came  before  the  board.2  Toward  the  end  of  the  period 
here  treated,  the  expenditure  of  immense  sums  of  money  by 
New  York  City  to  fill  its  quotas  of  troops,  all  of  which 
money  was  handled  by  the  board  of  supervisors,  furnished 
a  great  opportunity  for  Tweed  and  his  allies.3 

But  it  was  the  aldermanic  ring  which  was  conspicuous  in 
the  early  sixties.  "  It  is  to  this  Ring,"  said  the  Tribune, 

that  we  owe  the  shameful  Battery  swindle ;  the  disorganization 
of  the  Williamsburg  Ferries ;  the  defeat  of  the  plan  for  putting 
the  Post  Office  in  the  Park ;  the  daily  violation  of  the  charter 

democrats  accused  Morgan  of  attempting  to  work  an  "honesty 
dodge,"  saying  that  his  vetoes  were  intended  to  be  overridden,  and 
they  asserted  that  Morgan  and  Weed  had  a  thorough  understanding- 
while  the  vetoes  were  paraded  in  public.  This  seems  to  have  been 
merely  a  partisan  accusation;  the  Evening-  Post,  which  was  sufficiently 
independent  to  expose  such  a  condition  had  it  existed,  spoke  of  the 
"perfect  understanding  among  the  leaders  of  the  majority  in  their  war 
with  Governor  Morgan"  (Evening  Post,  quoted  by  Argus  September 
5,  1860).  Upon  Morgan's  retirement,  the  Argus  acknowledged  that 
he  had  "with  great  fidelity  fulfilled  the  duties  of  his  high  office" 
(Argus,  Jan.  i,  1863). 

2  Report  of  the  Special  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  appointed 
to  investigate  the  Ring  Frauds,  pp.  14,  16. 
'Breen's  Thirty  Years  of  New  York  Politics,  p.  55. 


36          XEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [236 

in  refusing  to  contract  for  the  street  cleaning;  the  retardation 
of  the  Central  Park  by  refusing  to  issue  bonds ;  the  expensive 
and  unreasonable  extensions  of  Belgian  pavements  in  remote 
and  unfrequented  streets ;  the  doubling  and  trebling  of  ex 
penses  for  celebrations;  the  shameless  extravagance  of  public 
printing.  .  .  .  Let  any  man  come  to  the  City  Hall  with  ever 
so  just  a  bill  against  the  City,  and  he  will  be  put  off,  until 
quite  accidentally  a  friend  of  the  Ring  hints  that  a  few 
dollars  paid  to  such  an  outsider  will  induce  the  Board  to  put 
his  bill  forward.  .  .  .  Confirming  contracts  is  a  good  busi 
ness  for  the  Ring.  .  .  .  * 

Perhaps,  it  was  to  hit  at  some  rival  but  surely  it  was  not 
without  knowledge  that  Judge  Barnard — he  of  subsequent 
Tweed  ring  fame — in  1864  thus  charged  the  Grand  Jury: 

A  few  years  since  a  body  of  unprincipled  and  corrupt  men 
banded  together  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  legislative 
branch  of  the  city  government  by  their  votes,  forming  what  is 
now  known  as  the  "  Ring."  It  is  still  in  active  operation. 
There  is  no  scheme,  no  matter  how  corrupt  or  wicked,  but 
what  will  pass  through  provided  a  sufficient  pecuniary  induce 
ment  is  brought  to  bear;  and  no  measure,  however  meritor 
ious,  is  sufficient  to  become  a  law  unless  a  like  influence  is  used.2 

The  years  1 860-61  were  said  to  have  been  the  heyday  of 
these  boodlers.  At  this  time  and  later  the  leading' spirit  of 
the  combination  was  an  alderman  named  Boole.3  The  city 

1  Tribune,  Aug.  2,  1860.  The  Herald,  too,  bore  testimony  to  the  ex 
istence  and  corrupt  doings  of  the  ring,  e.  g.,  Herald,  Aug.  7,  1860. 

1  Tribune,  April  8,  1864. 

8  Tribune,  Nov.  28,  1863.  See  also  A.  D.  White's  Autobiography,  i, 
p.  108.  Boole  had  been  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Councilmen  of  1856, 
which  body  acquired  a  bad  reputation  because  of  its  jobbery.  Later,  the 
Board  of  Aldermen,  under  Boole's  leadership,  appropriated  $80,000  for 
the  Japanese  Reception,  including  $7,000  for  carriages,  a  proceeding 
which  rightfully  was  considered  a  scandal.  In  1863  Boole  was  both 
city  inspector  and  alderman  (Tribune,  Nov.  28,  1863). 


237]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  37 

and  county  debt  rose  from  fourteen  millions  in  1855  to 
twenty-eight  and  a  quarter  millions  in  1862.  Speaking  of 
a  few  years  later — and  the  same  conditions  probably  existed 
in  1860 — an  address  signed  by  prominent  citizens  said  that 
the  public  wharves,  piers,  ferries,  markets,  and  buildings 
were  so  mismanaged  as  to  yield  but  trifling  revenue,  that 
the  streets  were  badly  paved  and  many  of  them  filthy,  and 
that  through  neglect  the  mortality  of  the  city  had  become 
alarmingly  great.1 

The  Herald  editorially  declared  that  some  of  the  newly- 
elected  members  of  the  Common  Council  were  at  that 
moment  under  indictment,  and  the  Tribune  affirmed  that 
the  charge  was  true.2  The  former  paper  said : 

Our  city  legislators,  with  but  few  exceptions,  are  an  unprin 
cipled,  illiterate,  scheming  set  of  cormorants,  foisted  upon  the 
community  through  the  machinery  of  primary  elections,  bribed 
election  inspectors,  ballot  box  stuffing,  and  numerous  other 
illegal  means.  .  .  .  The  consequence  is  that  we  have  a  class 
of  municipal  legislators  forced  upon  us  who  have  been  edu 
cated  in  barrooms,  brothels  and  political  societies ;  and  whose 
only  aim  in  attaining  power  is  to  consummate  schemes  for 
their  own  aggrandizement  and  pecuniary  gain.3 

The  Tribune  bore  like  testimony.     It  said :  "  Our  local  gov- 

1  Address  of  the  Citizens'  Association,  signed  among  others  by  Peter 
Cooper,  Hamilton  Fish,  and  William  E.  Dodge — printed  in  the  Tribune, 
Feb.  8,    1864.     Godkin's  Life  and  Letters,   i,  pp.    171-3  gives  similar 
testimony  written  in  1857. 

2  Herald,  Jan.  5,  1860.     The  aldermen  adopted  a  resolution  appointing 
a  special  committee  to  take  into  consideration  the  Herald 's  article. 
The  Tribune  warned  the  Common  Council  to  beware  how  they  played 
"  with  two-edged  tools,  as,  unfortunately  for  the  city,  some  of  the  mem 
bers  are  amenable  to  the  charge  made  by  the  Herald  " — Tribtine,  Jan. 
17,  1860.     It  does  not  appear  that  any  further  action  was  taken  by  the 
aldermen. 

3  Herald,   Jan.    13,   1860.     Similar  testimony  was  given  in   1857  by 
Godkin,  Life  and  Letters,  i,  pp.  171-3. 


,g          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [238 

crnment  could  not  well  be  worse.  .  .  .  Our  Common  Coun 
cil  is  probably  as  utterly  shamelessly  corrupt  as  any  such 
body  ever  was  on  earth.  It  is  a  stench  in  the  nostrils  of  the 
whole  city  .  .  .  ,"  and  Republican  though  this  paper  was, 
it  expressed  the  opinion  that  half  of  the  Republican  minority 
in  either  board  was  about  as  rotten  as  the  majority  of  the 
Democrats.1 

In  1860,  there  were  the  same  complaints  that  we  frequently 
hear  now  about  the  lack  of  interest  in  municipal  nomina 
tions  and  elections  by  those  classes  of  the  population  having 
most  at  stake.2  Robert  B.  Roosevelt,  a  prominent  citi 
zen,  asserted  that  the  candidates  at  the  municipal  election  of 
December,  1864,  included  "prize  fighters,  emigrant  run 
ners,  baggage  smashers,  bounty  swindlers,  notorious  thieves, 
state's  prison  graduates,  and  others  whose  occupation  has 
been  too  low  to  mention."  How  much  worse  conditions, 
were  then  than  now,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  reform  was 
then  far  more  difficult;  for  the  primaries  were  in  1862 
"  notoriously  and  proverbially  the  scenes  of  the  most  dis 
graceful  fraud,  chicanery,  and  violence,"  unregulated  by 
law,  and  so  bad  that  "  Peaceable  and  orderly  citizens,  almost 
without  exception,  refuse[d]  to  attend"  them.4  To  make 
conditions  even  more  hopeless,  elections  were  tainted  with 
frauds,  apparently  far  worse  than  those  with  which  we  may 
now  be  afflicted.5  The  present-day  laments  over  the  short- 

1  Tribune,  Mar.  12,  1860. 

s  Tribune,  June  29,  1860;  Herald,  Dec.  6,  1860;  Godkin  (in  1857)  Life 
andLetters,  i,  pp.  i7I~3- 
*  Herald,  Dec.  2,  1864. 

4  Report  of  a  select  committee  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  Documents 
of  the  Board  of  Aldermen,   1862,  xxxiv,  no.  7,  quoted  in  Myers'  His 
tory  of  Tammany  Hall,  p.  243;  see  also  Tribune,  Dec.  27,  1864. 

5  Davenport' s  Election  Frauds  of  New  York  City  and  their  Preven 
tion,  i,  pp.  30,  34,  35,  49,  57;  Myers'  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  p.  233. 


239]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  39 

comings  of  New  York's  municipal  government  hardly  ex 
ceed  the  fierce  denunciation  of  the  character  and  actions 
of  the  officials  of  the  metropolis  during  the  period  here  dealt 
with ;  and,  in  view  of  the  development  a  few  years  after  the 
war,  these  allegations  were  seemingly  all  too  well  founded. 

The  great  subjects  which  engaged  the  attention  of  the 
whole  nation  had  not,  at  the  beginning  of  1860,  entirely  dis 
placed,  as  party  questions  in  New  York,  matters  relating 
more  particularly  to  the  State,  but  the  transition  was  going 
on.  This  was  shown  in  the  session  of  the  Legislature  of 
that  year.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  Governor  Morgan's 
annual  message  l  was  devoted  to  the  state  finances,  charities, 
canals,  railroads,  and  other  institutions.  The  Governor  re 
ferred  briefly  and  moderately  to  the  slavery  issue,  express 
ing  the  common  Republican  opinions  on  the  evils  of  slavery, 
the  duty  of  non-interference  with  it  in  the  states  where  it 
existed,  opposition  to  its  extension  into  the  territories,  and 
the  right  of  Congress  to  legislate  thereon.  As  to  the  John 
Brown  raid,  he  declared  that  New  York  State  emphatically 
disavowed  "  all  sympathy  or  co-operation  with  those  mis 
guided  men.  .  .  .  We  may  admit  that  their  aims  were  un 
selfish  and  even  philanthropic  .  .  .  but  we  must  never 
forget  the  obvious  truth,  that  social  order  can  only  exist 
through  a  general  recognition  of  the  sanctity  of  law,  .  .  ." 
This  passage  in  the  message,  some  resolutions  bearing  on 
similar  topics,  and  the  various  Union-saving  meetings  held 
within  the  State  furnished  occasion  for  several  party  de 
bates  and  speeches  in  both  houses.2 

Two  party  measures  of  this  session  were  closely  connected 
with  the  great  national  question.  One  was  a  personal-liberty 

1  Lincoln's  Messages  front  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  151-198. 
*  Argus,  Jan.  12,  18,  28,   Feb.  8,  15,  Mar.  3,  5;  Herald,  Jan.  12,  18, 
21,  Feb.  8,  15. 


40          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [24O 

bill.1  Such  a  measure  had  passed  in  the  Assembly  during 
the  previous  year,  but  failed  in  the  Senate.2  The  radical 
Republicans,  who  were  strongly  in  favor  of  this  bill,  were 
not  able  this  time  to  secure  its  passage  even  through  the 
lower  house,  owing,  one  of  their  number  charged,  to  their 
opposition  to  the  city  railroad  bills.3  The  other  measure 

/referred  to  was  the  constitutional  amendment,  already  acted 
upon  favorably  by  the  preceding  legislature,  abolishing  the 
property  franchise  qualification  for  negoes.  Such  an 
amendment,  it  was  estimated,  would  increase  the  negro  vote 
from  three  or  four  hundred  to  nine  or  ten  thousand.4  Despite 
some  dissent  on  the  Republican  side  in  both  houses  and  a 
vigorous  and  unanimous  opposition  from  the  Democrats, 

v  the  measure  passed.5 

As  the  session  advanced,  however,  the  legislators  got 
down  to  more  interesting  business.  In  1860,  the  New  York 
legislature  was  already  distinguished  for  its  numerous  and 
powerful  lobby,  for  its  constant  tinkering  with  the  local 
government  of  New  York  City,  and  generally  for  its  corrup 
tion.  This  particular  legislature  of  1860  went  down  in  the 
annals  of  the  State  with  a  very  bad  record,  because  of  its 
grants  of  charters  for  New  York  City  railroads.  The  at 
tempted  abuse  in  the  giving  of  such  franchises  by  the  muni 
cipal  Common  Council  of  1852 — "the  forty  thieves  "  —had 
led  to  the  power  being  taken  from  that  body  in  the  follow 
ing  year  and  being  vested  in  the  legislature.  Three  projects 

1  Herald,  Mar.  12;  Assembly  Journal,  1860,  pp.  356,  463. 

2 Herald,  Jan.  9;  Argus,  Jan.  27. 

8  Letter  of  Assemblyman  Powell,  one  of  the  committee  which  reported 
the  bill,  to  the  editors  of  the  Evening  Post,  printed  in  the  Post,  Oct. 
27.  The  bill  was  debated  at  several  sessions  on  party  lines. 

4 Herald,  Sept.  18. 

5 Herald.  Feb.  11,  April  19;  Argus,  Feb.  n,  April  10;  Assembly 
\Journal,  I860,  p.  712. 


241  ]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  41 

for  city  railroads  had  failed  at  the  session  of  1859.  Now 
these  bills  were  lumped  together  in  the  infamous  "  grid 
iron  "  bill,  whose  chief  beneficiary  was  George  Law.1  The 
Tribune  said  of  this  bill  that  it  was  "  generally  regarded 
as  a  scheme  to  divide  about  $1,000,000  between  the  lobby 
kings  who  devised  and  the  members  who  voted  "  for  it.2 
We  have  already  seen  what  Thurlow  Weed's  connection 
with  this  measure  was.3  Though  the  committee  on  cities 
and  villages  reported  adversely  on  the  bill  as  creating  a 
monopoly,  and  though  the  Assembly  by  an  overwhelming 
majority  agreed  with  its  committee,4  a  fortnight  later  separ 
ate  bills  for  the  street  railroads  were  reported  and  the  House 
reversed  its  previous  course.5  In  the  end,  the  measures  went 
through  both  houses.  The  Governor  vetoed  all  but  one ; 6 
but  they  were  passed  over  his  veto  in  both  Senate  and  As 
sembly,7  through  Weed's  influence,8  though  the  Albany 
Evening  Journal  later  positively  denied  that  charge.9  The 
Democratic  members  in  their  customary  address  issued  at 
the  close  of  the  session,  assailed  the  corruption  of  the  legis 
lature  controlled  by  their  opponents;  but  the  fact  was  that 
on  these  railroad  bills,  which  gave  that  body  its  black  record, 
party  lines  were  wiped  out10 

1  Herald,  Mar.  9:  Tribune,  Mar.  9. 

*  Tribune,  Mar.  9.  3  Ante,  p.  23. 

4 Herald,  Mar.  15;  Assembly  Journal,  I860,  pp.  641-2. 

5  Assembly  Journal,  1860,  pp.  861-867. 

6  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  238-242. 

7  Assembly  Journal,  I860,  pp.  1363-1366;  1382  (Senate's  concurrence). 

8  Supra   for    Weed's    admission  of    his    connection    with    this   leg 
islation.     The  Tribune  of  August  20  declared  that  "the  editor  of  the 
Albany  Evening  Journal  is  well  known  to  have  been  the  most  active 
and  powerful  agent  in  inducing  Republican  senators  and  members  of 
the  Assembly  to  ....  nullify  his  [Morgan's]  veto." 

9  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Aug.  21. 

10 Herald,  April  19;  Tribune,  April  12. 


42          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [242 

Three  of  this  session's  bills  of  a  partisan  nature  were 
aimed  at  the  New  York  Central  Railroad.  Many  Repub 
licans  believed  that  the  influence  of  this  corporation  was 
used  against  their  party  and  in  behalf  of  the  Democrats ; l 
and  despite  the  denials  of  that  accusation  on  the  part  of  the 
directors,  a  persistent  agitation  was  kept  up  for  several  years 
against  the  company.  One  of  the  bills  prevented  voting  by 
proxy  by  railroad  stockholders,  the  intent  probably  being  to 
get  control  of  the  road  from  Erastus  Corning  by  depriving 
him  of  the  votes  of  foreign  stockholders,2  and  perhaps  (as 
charged)  to  transfer  the  road's  influence  to  the  Republicans. 
Those  opposed  to  this  measure  argued  that  such  a  law 
would  be  regarded  abroad  as  practical  repudiation  and  that 
since  American  corporations  were  largely  dependent  on 
foreign  capital,  such  legislation  would  be  fatal.3  The  Re 
publicans  were  not  unanimous  in  support  of  the  bill,  and  it 
failed  to  pass.4 

The  other  two  bills,  if  enacted,  would  have  hit  the  New 
York  Central  principally.  They  were  both  in  the  interests 
of  the  canals.  One  was  the  pro-rata  bill,  which  aimed  to 
prevent  discrimination  in  freight  charges  against  shippers 
in  New  York  State.5  The  western  counties  were  urgently 
asking  for  relief  of  this  sort.6  Naturally  the  canal  for- 

1  Herald,  Jan.  u;   Tribune,  Feb.  20. 

''•Herald,  Jan.  12,  partly  confirmed  by  remarks  in  the  assembly  de 
bate,  Argus,  Mar.  i. 

3  Argus,  Jan.  23.     Frequent  editorials  in  the  Argus  during  February 
denounced  the  bill. 

4  Assembly  Journal,   I860,   p.    941.     The   Albany  Evening  Journal 
(Feb.  27)  was  against  the  bill.     The  warfare  against  the  Central  was 
renewed  in  1863,  when  the  Times  and  the  Tribune  assailed  the  road's 
management.     The  Argus  (Nov.  20)  replied  that  six  of  the  directors 
were  Republicans,  six  Democrats,  and  one  a  non-resident  whose  poli 
tics  were  not  known. 

6  Argus,  Feb.  29.  *  Herald,  Feb.  25. 


243]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  43 

warders  desired  such  a  measure.  On  the  other  hand,  the  op 
ponents  of  the  bill,  who  included  the  New  York  City  Cham 
ber  of  Commerce,1  claimed  that  such  a  law  would  drive 
traffic  to  other  states  and  to  Canada,  and  irreparably  injure 
the  commerce  of  New  York  State.  The  third  measure  was 
the  bill  to  toll  the  railroads.  It  was  urged  that  the  State, 
upon  authorizing  the  construction  of  the  various  railroads 
which  had  been  subsequently  merged  into  the  New  York 
Central,  had  done  so  on  the  express  condition,  that  they 
should  not  carry  freight,  or  if  they  did,  that  they  should 
pay  tolls;  and  it  was  declared  that  the  action  of  the  Legis 
lature  of  1851  in  relieving  the  roads  from  such  tolls  was  un 
wise  and  unconstitutional.2  But  a  stronger  argument  was 
the  imperative  need  of  the  State  for  additional  revenues. 
Such  a  law  would  provide  funds  sufficient  to  avert  the 
threatened  large  increase  in  the  direct  tax,  which  it  was 
thought  might  endanger  Republican  supremacy  in  the  State.3 
In  his  annual  message,  Governor  Morgan  recommended 
the  reimposition  of  tolls;  and  during  the  session  he  sent 
in  a  special  message  renewing  the  advocacy  of  such  a  meas 
ure.4  On  the  other  hand,  Dean  Richmond  appeared  on  the 
scene  and  lobbied  against  these  bills  ;5  and  the  Albany  Argus 
kept  up  a  daily  warfare  upon  them.  As  to  the  toll  bill,  it 
was  said  that  as  the  State  had  not  constructed  the  railroads, 
it  would  be  unjust  to  levy  tolls  upon  them,  and  also  that  it 
was  inequitable  to  single  out  one  species  of  property  for  tax- 

1  Protest  of  that  body  against  the  pro-rata  bill,  printed  in  the  Albany 
Evening  Journal,  Feb.  16. 

-E.  g.,  speech  of  Senator  Bell  (Argus,  Mar.  23);  Tribune,  April  5; 
opinion  of  the  Attorney-General,  Argus,  April  4. 

3  Tribune,  April  3;  Herald,  April  6. 

4  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  204-212. 
5 Herald,  Jan.  14,  Feb.  5. 


44         NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [244 

ation.1  The  Republican  majority,  the  Argus  asserted,  had 
not  "  the  courage  to  meet  the  responsibility  of  direct  tax 
ation  or  to  hold  the  government  to  its  necessary  and  simple 
functions."  The  raid  upon  the  railroads  was  declared  to 
be  the  consequence  of  the  policy  of  extravagance  and  debt 
which  the  Republicans  had  introduced ; 3  and  the  bills  were 
denounced  as  acts  of  "  rapine  and  confiscation  and  plunder"  4 
— "  the  legacy  of  Sewardism  to  the  State."  5 

The  debates  in  both  houses,  however,  seem  to  have  been 
for  the  most  part  on  economic  and  financial  rather  than  on 
party  lines.6  Perhaps  this  was  owing  to  the  fact  that  upon 
both  the  pro-rata  and  the  toll  bills  the  Republicans  were  di 
vided.  In  vain  caucuses  were  resorted  to.7  A  part  of  the 
Republicans  in  both  houses  joined  with  almost  all  the  Demo 
crats  against  the  canal  representatives.  The  pro-rata  bill 
passed  the  Assembly,  though  with  twenty-eight  Republican 
nays ; 8  but  the  scheme  was  practically  defeated  by  a  coali 
tion  in  the  Senate  between  the  Democrats  and  part  of  the 
Republicans,  by  which  a  substitute  was  adopted  providing 
for  the  appointment  of  a  commission  to  confer  with  like 

1  Argus,  Jan.  23. 

*  Argus,  Feb.  25.     Similar  attacks,  Feb.  u,  Mar.  23. 
8  Argus,  Jan.  31.  *  Argus,  Mar.  22. 

6 Argus,  Feb.  29. 

6  Pro-rata  bill  debates,  Argus,  Feb.  16,  17,  27,  28,  29,  Mar.  i,  3.     Toll 
bill  debates,  Argus,  Feb.  u,  Mar.  8,  10,  15,  April  13. 

7  Argus,  Mar.  21,  22,  23.     The  Albany  Evening  Journal,  after  being 
silent  on  the  pro-rata  bill  for  a  month  and  a  half,  came  out  against  it 
(Albany  Evening  Journal,  Feb.  15,  24);  during   the  earlier  half  of  the 
session  it  favored  the  toll  bill  with  a  removal  of  restrictions  on  fares  as 
a  compensation  to  the  railroads  (Albany  Evening  Jjurnal,  Mar.  9).     It 
also  favored  accepting  a  lump  sum  from  the  railroads  (Albany  Evening 
Journal,  April  12).     Weed  later  (Aug.  21)  said  that  he  had  acquiesced 
in  a  policy  of  which  he  did  not  approve. 

8  Assembly  Journal,  1860,  p.  461. 


245]  POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  45 

bodies  from  other  states  on  the  feasibility  of  establishing  a, 
uniform  and  equitable  system  of  freight  rates.1  Even  this 
measure,  however,  failed  to  pass,  owing  to  a  disagreement 
between  the  houses  as  to  the  composition  of  the  commission.2 
As  to  the  toll  bill,  it  passed  the  Assembly ; 3  but  in  the  Sen 
ate  the  same  sort  of  combination  as  had  been  formed  on  the 
pro-rata  bill  passed  a  substitute,  imposing  tolls  for  three 
years  but  authorizing  in  lieu  thereof  the  payment  of  certain 
fixed  sums  (including  $500,000  from  the  New  York  Cen 
tral)  and  authorizing  the  Central  to  charge  two  and  a  half 
cents  a  mile  on  way  travel.4  This  would  have  thrown  part 
of  the  tax  upon  passengers.  The  Assembly  refused  to  ac 
cept  the  substitute,5  each  house  clung  to  its  own  bill,6  and 
thus  the  attempt  to  toll  the  railroads  failed.7  The  Tribune 
charged  that  the  loss  of  the  bill  involved  the  setting  aside  of 
a  policy  which  had  previously  "  received  the  deliberate  and 
hearty  assent  of  the  Editor  of  the  Albany  Evening  Journal/' 
that  Weed  had  become  "  a  powerful  element  in  the  combina 
tion  headed  by  Dean  Richmond  which  defeated"  the  bill,  and 
that  "  individuals  made  large  sums  out  of  the  stock  specu 
lations  based  upon  an  early  and  certain  knowledge  that  the 
Governor's  recommendation  as  to  Railroad  Tolls  was  to  be 
defeated."  8  Subsequently,  the  Argus,  while  praising  the 

'Assembly  Journal,  2860,  p.  1135;  Senate  Journal,  1860,  pp.  602,  606. 

*  Argus,  April  n;  Assembly  Journal,  1860,  p.  1383. 

8  Five   Democrats  voted  for  and  six  Republicans   against   the   bill. 
Assembly  Journal,  1860,  p.  576. 
4  Argus,  Mar.  8;  Senate  Journal,  1860,  p.  465. 
6  Assembly  Journal,  1860,  p.  944. 

6  Assembly  Journal,  1860,  pp.  1134,  1345,  1368;  Senate  Journal,  1860, 
PP-  693,  936. 

7  Argus,  April  18. 

*  Tribune,  Aug.  20. 


46          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [246 

Senate  for  having  fearlessly  defended  the  public  interests, 
said  that  the  upper  house  of  the  Legislature  had  defied  "  a 
storm  of  abuse  and  detraction  unprecedented  in  the  his 
tory  of  the  State."  * 

Lastly,  mention  should  be  made  of  the  metropolitan  police 
law  2  and  of  the  proposed  charter  amendments  for  New 
York  City.  The  former,  a  Republican  measure,  which  it 
was  asserted  had  Tammany  back  of  it,3  took  from  the 
mayors  of  New  York  City  and  Brooklyn  their  ex-officio 
seats  in  the  metropolitan  police  board,  thereby  dealing  a 
blow  at  Fernando  Wood,4  and  reduced  the  membership  of 
the  board  to  three  persons  appointed  by  the  governor.  The 
career  of  the  charter  amendments  showed  how  the  interests 
of  New  York  City  were  buffeted  about  by  contrary  political 
currents  at  Albany.  Tammany  was  eager  to  clip  still 
further  Wood's  wings,  Wood  was  anxious  to  take  from  the 
aldermen  the  control  of  the  municipal  patronage,  and 
Hawes,  the  Republican  controller  of  New  York  City,  wanted 
increased  power.5  The  amendments  took  such  form  as  to 
deprive  the  aldermen  of  the  right  to  confirm  or  reject  nomi 
nations,  and  to  give  more  power  to  the  mayor  and  the  con 
troller.6  This  combination,  however,  met  with  strenuous 
opposition  from  Tammany.7  Near  the  close  of  the  session 
the  committee  reported  an  amendment  taking  from  the 
mayor  certain  powers  which  were  given  to  the  controller 

1  Argus,  Nov.  19. 

2  Assembly  Journal,  2860,  p.  1209. 

3  Herald,  Feb.  3. 

4 Herald,  April  12;  Argus,  April  5,  n. 

5 Herald,  Feb.  11,  Mar.  2,  12;  Argus,  Mar.  21. 

6 Herald,  Mar.  24;  Tribune,  Mar.  28. 

7  Herald,  Mar.  22,  24. 


POLITICAL  SITUATION  IN  1860  47 

and  leaving  those  of  the  aldermen  untouched;  whereupon 
the  whole  matter  was  buried  by  the  House.1 

1  Herald,  April  7;  Assembly  Journal,  I860,  p.  1051.  The  same  sort 
of  conflict  between  Tammany  and  Mozart  occurred  during  the  session 
of  1861  over  a  bill  for  a  commission  to  draw  up  a  new  charter  for  New 
York  City  (Herald,  April  6,  1861).  The  debates  and  divisions  on  ques 
tions  connected  with  the  canals  were  in  part  on  partisan  lines,  though 
mostly  not  so  (Argus,  Mar.  i,  2,  8,  10).  Two  minor  bills,  which 
caused  quite  warm  party  debates,  were  those  concerning  the  public 
health  in  New  York,  Kings  and  Richmond  Counties  (Argus,  April  4, 
10),  and  abolished  the  Almshouse  governors  (Argus,  April  10). 


CHAPTER  II 
NEW  YORK  AND  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860 


THE  Wood  movement  was  more  formidable  than 
Regency  organs  affected  to  believe.  During  the  early  part 
of  the  year,  the  anti-Regency  Democrats  in  their  respective 
congressional  districts  throughout  the  State,  chose  delegates 
to  the  Charleston  Convention  ;  l  and  at  the  beginning  of 
February,  a  state  convention  for  the  purpose  of  naming  the 
delegates  at  large  was  held  at  Syracuse.  Every  county  was 
represented,  a  number  of  men  prominent  in  local  politics 
were  in  attendance,  the  proceedings  were  harmonious,  and 
the  delegates  were  reported  as  confident  of  their  admission 
at  Charleston.2  Thomas  G.  Alvord,  ex-speaker  of  the  as 
sembly  and  later  lieutenant-governor,  was  elected  president 
of  the  convention.  The  prevailing  note  in  the  speeches  was 
that  those  assembled  represented  the  national  Democracy 
of  the  State,  "  that  portion  of  the  Democracy  who  contend 
honestly  and  faithfully,  not  hypocritically,  for  the  reserved 
equal  and  sovereign  rights  of  every  State,  .  .  .  whose 
record  is  not  stained  with  any  Wilmot  proviso  or  anti-slav 
ery  agitation."  3  Fernando  Wood,  John  A.  Green,  Gideon 
J.  Tucker,  and  Joshua  R.  Babcock  were  selected  as  delegates 
at  large,  Wood  being  subsequently  chosen  chairman  of  the 

•  Herald,  Jan.  4,  7;  Tribune,  Feb.  7- 

*  Herald,  Feb.  7;  Tribune,  Feb.  7. 

3  Speech  of  John  A.   Green  upon  calling  the  convention  to  order. 
The  same  sentiments  were  expressed  by  Thomas  G.  Alvord. 

48  [248 


249]         THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          49 

delegation.1  His  own  speech  was  of  a  tone  which  must  have 
satisfied  the  most  rabid  state  rights  Southerner.  The 
Charleston  Mercury  commended  it  as  "  a  sound  Democratic 
speech,"  and  Wood's  principles  as  "  all  the  Southern  rights 
party  .  .  .  require  of  the  Convention."  2  The  consequences 
of  this  rift  in  the  New  York  Democracy  were  not  difficult 
to  foresee.  The  Herald,  at  the  beginning  of  February,  pre 
dicted  that  whichever  set  of  contestants  might  be  seated  at 
Charleston,  the  result  would  be  the  same,  the  loss  of  the  state 
by  the  Democrats. 

The  regular  delegation  included  far  more  men  of  ability 
and  prominence  than  did  that  of  Wood.  In  the  former  as 
delegates  at  large  were  Dean  Richmond,  Isaac  V.  Fowler, 
and  Augustus  Schell ;  among  the  district  delegates  were  Au 
gust  Belmont,  ex-Speaker  William  H.  Ludlow,  John  Kelly, 
United  States  Marshal  Isaiah  Rynders  (of  Empire  Club 
fame  and  for  years  a  character  in  New  York  politics),  John 
Cochrane,  Nelson  J.  Waterbury,  John  Clancy,  Erastus  Corn 
ing,  Henry  S.  Randall  (the  biographer  of  Jefferson),  Peter 
Cagger,  Lemuel  Stetson  and  Darius  A.  Ogden  (both  of 
whom  later  were  prominent  war  Democrats),  Edwin  Cros- 
well  and  Sanford  E.  Church.3  It  will  be  seen  from  these 
names  that  the  delegation  was  not  wholly  composed  of 
former  "  softs  ".  At  the  state  convention  in  the  previous 
year,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson  had  made  a  speech  utterly  repro 
bating  the  tactics  of  Wood  and  thus  influenced  many  of  the 
delegates  to  desert  that  wily  leader.4  It  was  subsequently 
asserted  that  this  effective  aid  from  Dickinson  was  procured 

'  Herald,  Feb.  8. 

1  Charleston  Mercury  of  Feb.  18,  quoted  in  Herald,  Feb.  22. 
3Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860,  p.  14. 

*  Argus,   Jan.    u;  Dickinson's  Speeches,  Correspondence,  etc.,  i.  pp. 
624,  678. 


5o          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [250 

by  the  Regency  leaders  through  an  understanding  that  half 
of  the  delegation  to  the  Charleston  Convention  should  be 
"  hards  ",  thus  securing  a  chance  for  Dickinson's  presiden 
tial  aspirations,  but  that  having  carried  their  point,  the 
Regency  had  played  false  to  the  Sage  of  Binghampton.1 
Certainly,  the  majority  of  the  delegation  were  "  softs  ";  and 
through  the  unit  rule  which  they  had  been  instructed  to 
follow  at  the  state  convention,  they  were  all  in  Dean  Rich 
mond's  control. 

Dickinson's  friends  were  active  in  his  support.  They 
claimed  that  as  a  Northern  man  who  had  consistently  clung 
to  Southern  views  for  years  and  who  had  not  bolted  nor 
even  revenged  himself  when  Buchanan  handed  over  the 
patronage  to  the  "  softs  ",  Dickinson  would  be  very  accept 
able  to  the  South.  Moreover,  they  urged  that  he  could 
carry  New  York  against  Seward.  In  January,  when  the 
Argus  was  disparaging  the  Wood  movement,  it  made  much 
of  Dickinson's  adherence  to  the  regular  state  convention, 
and  said  editorially  that  if  the  Charleston  Convention 

should  summon  from  a  dignified  retirement  to  lead  the  Demo 
cratic  hosts,  such  a  man  as  Daniel  S.  Dickinson — or  any  other 
patriotic  son  of  this"  State — it  would  be  mere  affectation,  it 
would  be  positively  ungrateful  in  us,  or  the  Democrats  of 
this  State,  to  conceal  the  gratification  which  such  a  selection 
would  afford.2 

But  when  the  time  for  action  drew  near,  the  Regency 
leaders  would  not  support  Dickinson.3  They  were  subse- 

1  Washington  correspondence  of  the  Hefald,  May  2;  Herald,  Jan.  7, 
June  21,  July  7;  Tribune,  June  27;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  26. 

2 Ar%us,  Jan.  n. 

3 Herald,  April  23;  Tribune,  April  23,  24.  Dickinson's  strength  was 
shown  later  when  he  received  in  the  seceders'  convention  at  Baltimore 
24  out  of  105  votes  for  the  presidential  nomination  (Halstead,  Political 
Conventions  of  I860,  p.  224). 


251]        THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          51 

quently  accused  of  manoeuvring  to  hand  the  prize  eventu 
ally  to  Horatio  Seymour.  Very  likely  they  would  have 
been  glad  to  take  advantage  of  any  opening  for  him,  but  it 
seems  that  they  were  sincerely  for  Douglas.  Before  the 
question  as  to  which  delegation  should  be  admitted  was  de 
cided,  both  sets  of  contestants  naturally  preserved  more  or 
less  of  a  discreet  silence  as  to  preferences  j1  but  the  Regency 
leaders  doubtless  realized  that  the  Democracy  of  New  York 
State  could  but  kill  itself  if  it  favored  an  extreme  Southern 
platform  or  candidate.  That  the  major  part  of  the  delega 
tion  leaned  toward  Douglas  and  that  he  was  the  favorite 
of  the  larger  portion  of  the  party  in  this  State,2  the  Doug 
las  men  at  Charleston  were  probably  aware.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  sympathies  of  the  Wood  contestants  could 
hardly  be  in  doubt.  So  it  was  that  in  the  contest  for  New 
York's  seats  the  ultra  Southerners  sided  with  Wood  and 
the  Douglas  men  with  the  Regency. 

Just  before  the  opening  of  the  convention,  Senator  Sliclell, 
withdrawing  his  name  from  consideration  for  the  presi 
dential  nomination,  indicated  the  acceptability  to  the  South 
of  Dickinson,  Horatio  Seymour,  Lane,  or  Toucey  as  the 
head  of  the  ticket  ;3  but  the  presence  of  two  delegations  from 

1  Herald,  Washington  dispatch,  April  17  (both  delegations  were  then 
in  Washington);  Herald,  April  21;  Tribune,  April  19,  23,  24.     Wood, 
however,  was  reported  as  having  circulated  in  Charleston  his  Connecti 
cut  speeches  and  as  having  professed  there  his  attachment  to  slavery 
{Tribune,  April  23). 

2  John  Stryker,  a  delegate  who  in  caucus  at  Charleston  cast  his  vote 
for  Dickinson,  said  later:  "...  the  feelings  of  their  [i.  e.,  the  New 
York  delegates']  constituents  had  become  somewhat  excited  in  favor  of 
Mr.  Douglas."     The  regular  state  convention  of  1859,  at  which  the 
delegates  to  the  national  convention  were  chosen,  had  passed  resolu 
tions  approving  the  Cincinnati  platform    (speech  of  Stryker,   quoted 
from  the  Rome  Daily  Sentinel   in  the  Argus,  Aug.  20). 

8  Letter  of  Slidell  printed  in  the  Herald,  May  17. 


52          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [252 

New  York  deprived  it  of  the  consideration  which  ordinarily 
is  given  to  its  favorite  sons.  And  yet,  as  events  proved, 
New  York's  attitude  proved  all  decisive.  At  the  national 
conventions  of  1852  and  1856,  New  York  had  sent  two  dele 
gations,  and  the  seats  had  been  equally  divided  between 
them.  To  have  gained  such  recognition  would  have  been  a 
great  triumph  for  Fernando  Wood,  and  in  all  likelihood 
would  have  greatly  increased  his  power.  Probably,  Wood 
hoped  for  no  more  than  this.  But  in  addition  to  the  disad 
vantages  stated  above,  he  and  his  followers  labored  under 
the  handicap  of  not  being  the  "  regular  "  delegation ;  and 
Wood's  reputation  was  so  much  against  him  that,  if  a  press 
correspondent  may  be  believed,  the  committee  on  creden 
tials  were  astonished  to  find  him  a  polished  gentleman  and 
not  a  rowdy.1 

The  Regency  delegation  won  the  first  stage  of  the  con 
test  by  securing  tickets  of  admission,  which  were  denied  to 
the  Wood  delegation.2  Immediately  after  the  temporary 
organization  of  the  convention,  Fisher  of  Virginia  offered 
a  letter  of  protest  from  the  Wood  contestants.  Cochrane, 
of  New  York,  objected  to  the  reading  of  the  document, 
whereupon  Fisher  questioned  the  right  of  Cochrane  to  speak 
on  the  subject  and  moved  that  neither  of  the  contestants 
from  New  York  be  allowed  to  vote  in  the  organization  of 
the  convention  or  to  take  part  in  its  proceedings  until  the 
contest  should  be  determined.  This  brought  on  an  exciting 
and  disorderly  debate.  In  the  end,  New  York,  like  Illinois, 
was  permitted  to  participate  in  the  work  of  the  committee 
on  organization,  and  in  the  committee  on  credentials  to  vote 
upon  all  cases  except  its  own.  Upon  motion  of  Cochrane, 
Wood's  letter  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  credentials 

1  Herald,  April  25. 

1  Tribune,  April  19;  Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860,  p.  7. 


253]         THE  PRES1DENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          53 

without  being  read  to  the  convention.1  Thus,  at  the  end 
of  the  first  day's  session,  the  Regency  delegates  actually 
held  the  seats,  had  taken  part  in  the  proceedings,  and  had 
been  accorded  representation  upon  the  two  important  com 
mittees;  the  Wood  delegates  had  nothing.  A  number  of 
Southerners  had  fought  upon  the  floor  for  Wood;  but  the 
Douglas  men  stood  steadily  by  the  Regency  delegates,  and 
the  presiding  officer,  a  Douglas  adherent,  steadily  ruled  in 
their  behalf.2 

Before  the  committee  on  credentials,  Alvord  for  the 
Wood  delegation  and  Cochrane  for  the  Dean  Richmond 
delegation  presented  their  respective  versions  of  what  had 
occurred  at  the  state  convention  of  1859,  each  charging  the 
faction  of  the  other  with  disgraceful  fraud  and  violence.3 
Wood  also  made  an  argument  for  his  admission,  asserting 
that  the  system  of  choosing  delegates  by  congressional  dis 
tricts  was  fairer  and  more  democratic  than  that  according  to 
which  his  opponents  had  been  selected,  that  a  large  majority 
of  the  delegates  at  the  state  convention  had  acted  with  his  or 
ganization  until  after  the  passage  of  the  resolution  order 
ing  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  national  convention  by 
congressional  districts,  and  that  his  delegation  was  na 
tional  in  principle  while  his  opponents  were  Free-soilers 
and  bolters.4  Despite  this  appeal  to  the  South,  the  com 
mittee  on  credentials  decided  in  favor  of  the  Dean  Rich 
mond  delegation  by  the  surprising  vote  of  23  to  7.*  Per 
haps  the  large  majority  for  the  Regency  contestants  was 
due  to  hopes  that  New  York  would  go  for  some  other  than 

1  Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860 ,  pp.  19-22;  Herald,  April  24; 
Tribune,  April  24. 

*  Herald,  April  24;  Charleston  Mercury,  April  24,  quoted  in  the 
Argus,  April  28. 

'Charleston  Courier,  quoted  in  the  Argus,  May  i. 

4  Herald,  April  28.  5  Herald,  April  26. 


54          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [254 

Douglas;  possibly  it  was  understood  that  her  votes  in  the 
convention  would  be  cast  for  some  one  acceptable  to  the 
South.1  A  minority  report  favoring  the  equal  division  of 
the  New  York  seats  between  the  two  contesting  delega 
tions  was  signed  by  six  members,  five  of  whom  came  from 
the  cotton  states.  The  convention  adopted  the  majority 
report  by  a  vote  of  210^  to  55,  all  but  three  and  a  half 
votes  of  the  nays  coming  from  the  South.2  Thus  the  Re 
gency  won  a  complete  victory. 

It  was  charged  at  the  time  that  the  votes  of  many  South 
ern  men  in  the  convention  were  secured  for  the  Regency 
delegation  by  causing  it  to  appear  that  New  York  would 
vote  for  a  platform  and  a  candidate  satisfactory  to  the 
South,  and  that  subsequently  Dean  Richmond  and  his  asso 
ciates  treacherously  repudiated  the  understanding.3  That 
promises,  expressed  or  implied,  were  made  is  not  unlikely; 
and  some  probability  is  lent  to  the  first  part  of  the  accusation 
by  the  fact  that  Edwin  Croswell,  a  "  hard  ",  was  permitted 
to  be  New  York's  representative  on  the  committee  on  reso 
lutions.  The  great  fight  in  the  convention  was  on  the  plat 
form.  This  matter  caused  heated  dissension  among  the 
New  York  members.  Most  of  the  New  York  City  men  fav 
ored  a  pro-Southern  platform,  but  they  and  the  relatively 
few  up-state  "hards"  were  outnumbered.4  Dean  Richmond 
was  able  to  control  the  delegation  so  that  Croswell  was  in 
structed  in  caucus  to  reverse  his  vote  on  the  platform,  and 
he  did  so  accordingly.  Nevertheless,  the  committee  offered 

1 A  report  of  such  an  arrangement  was  published  in  the  Herald, 
April  26. 

*  Herald,  April  26:  Charleston  Mercury,  quoted  in  the  Argus,  May  2. 

*E.g.,  Herald,  April  27,  May  2,  17;  Charleston  correspondence  of 
the  Washington  Star,  quoted  in  the  Herald,  May  i;  Senator  Bayard 
in  the  seceders'  convention,  Herald,  May  2;  Tribune,  May  23. 

4 Herald,  May  i. 


255J        THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          55 

by  a  vote  of  17  to  16  a  majority  report  embodying  resolu 
tions  favored  by  the  South.  In  the  convention,  New  York, 
through  the  unit  rule,  cast  all  of  its  thirty-five  votes  for  the 
minority  or  Douglas  platform,  which  was  thus  adopted. 
Then  came  the  secession  of  a  number  of  Southern  delegates. 
Later,  the  votes  of  New  York  were  decisive  in  the  adop 
tion  of  a  resolution  requiring  for  nomination  two-thirds  of 
the  entire  membership  of  the  convention.  Such  a  condition, 
if  adhered  to,  made  it  impossible  for  Douglas  to  obtain  the 
prize.  The  accusation  was  therefore  made  that  the  Re 
gency  were  traitors  to  both  the  Douglas  and  the  anti-Douglas 
men  with  the  purpose  of  ultimately  bringing  about  the  nomi 
nation  of  Horatio  Seymour.1  However,  a  very  plausible 
explanation  of  New  York's  apparent  inconsistency  was 
made.  It  was  pointed  out  that  the  vote  of  her  delegation  on 
the  platform  was  called  for  by  the  overwhelming  sentiment 
of  the  larger  portion  of  the  party  in  the  State,  which  prob 
ably  would  have  rendered  a  complete  surrender  to  the  South 
suicidal;  while  the  threatened  withdrawal  of  the  remain 
ing  Southern  delegations  rendered  necessary  the  passage  of 
the  two-thirds  rule.2  The  New  York  delegation,  said  one 
prominent  Regency  leader,  supported  this  last  mentioned 
proposition  after  a  conference  with  the  Southerners  who  still 
retained  their  seats  in  the  convention,  "  although  we  re 
garded  the  two-thirds  rule  as  one  of  doubtful  propriety,  and 
although  we  all  regarded  the  proposed  construction  of  the 
rule  ...  as  grossly  unjustifiable  under  ordinary  circum 
stances."  3 

1  Herald,  May  17;  Washington  correspondence  of  the  Herald,  June 
i,  2;  Tribune,  May  3,  23,  June  27. 

'This  explanation  of  the  adoption  of  the  two-thirds  rule  was  given  by 
Butler  in  a  speech  delivered  at  Lowell,  Massachusetts,  May  15  {Herald, 
May  21 ). 

'Speech  of  Sanford  E.  Church  at  Albany,  Argus,  June  28. 


56          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [256 

In  caucus  the  New  Yorkers  expressed  their  preference 
for  standard-bearer,  Douglas  receiving  37  votes,  Dickinson 
20,  Guthrie  10,  Hunter  2,  and  Breckinridge  i.1  In  the  con 
vention  the  whole  vote,  of  course,  went  to  Douglas,  Dickin 
son  receiving  a  few  scattering  votes  from  other  delega 
tions.2  Here  again  there  were  charges  of  treachery  against 
the  Regency  leaders  on  the  ground  of  their  alleged  promises 
to  support  Dickinson.  From  the  standpoint  of  New  York 
politics,  the  net  result  of  the  convention  and  of  its  adjourned 
session  at  Baltimore  was  to  deepen  the  divisions  and  hatred 
in  the  New  York  Democracy. 

At  Baltimore,  as  at  Charleston,  the  New  York  delegation 
held  the  balance  of  power.  Again  there  was  talk  of  the 
nomination  of  Seymour  or  of  Dickinson  as  a  compromise 
candidate; 3  but  the  Regency  would  have  none  of  Dickinson, 
and  Seymour  wrote  a  letter  of  withdrawal.4  Nevertheless, 
Dean  Richmond  was  accused  of  waiting  for  a  favorable 
moment  to  drop  Douglas  for  Seymour.5  When  the  New 
York  delegation  was  held  united  against  the  proposal  of 
fered  by  one  of  the  leading  Democrats  from  that  State,  San- 
ford  E.  Church,  providing  that  all  accepting  seats  in  the 
convention  should  be  bound  in  honor  to  abide  by  the  action 
of  the  convention  and  agree  to  support  the  nominee — a 
proposition  which  the  ardent  Douglas  men  supported — it 

1  Herald,  May  i,  19,  giving  the  vote  in  detail,  said  to  be  "from  the 
notes  of  the  secretary."  These  figures  are  partly  confirmed  by  a 
speech  of  John  Stryker  in  the  Rome  Sentinel,  quoted  by  the  Argus, 
Aug.  20. 

*  Herald,  May  3. 

3 Herald,  June  19,  20;  partly  confirmed  by  Halstead,  Political  Con 
ventions  of  1860,  p.  160. 

4  Letter  of  Seymour  to  the  editor  of  the  Utica  Daily  Observer,  printed 
in  the  Tribune,  June  6. 

5 Herald,  June  18,  21,  27.  Partly  confirmed  by  Halstead,  Political 
Conventions  of  1860,  p.  229. 


257]        THE  PRES!DENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          57 

was  suspected  that  New  York  was  wavering  in  its  allegiance 
to  Douglas.1  The  editor  of  the  Albany  Argus  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  specially  well  qualified  to  speak  on  the  inner 
workings  of  the  Regency.  After  the  convention,  the  Argus 
declared  that  despite  the  admission  of  the  contesting  South 
ern  delegates  at  Baltimore,  Douglas  could  not  have  been 
nominated  had  there  not  been  a  further  secession;  "we 
speak  confidently,"  it  went  on, 

when  we  say  that  there  was  no  purpose — certainly  not  on  the 
part  _of  the  New  York  delegation — to  declare  him  nominated 
without  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  delegates  present.  Further 
than  this,  we  are  entirely  satisfied  that,  had  there  been  no 
secession,  after  it  had  been  demonstrated  by  a  few  ballots  that 
Mr.  Douglas  could  not  receive  two-thirds,  he  would  have  been 
withdrawn  by  his  friends,  and  a  harmonious  nomination  of 
some  other  person  would  have  taken  place.  If  not  with 
drawn,  we  are  certain  he  would  have  been  abandoned  by  a 
sufficient  number  to  have  given  another  candidate  a  two-thirds 
nomination.2 

John  Cochrane  years  afterwards  wrote  that  just  before 
the  reassembling  of  the  convention  at  Baltimore,  Slidell, 
"  assuming  and  unquestionably  empowered  with  author 
ity,"  offered  to  Dean  Richmond  and  to  Cochrane  the  united 
support  of  the  Southerners,  including  the  delegates  who  had 
seceded,  for  Seymour's  nomination,  provided  the  New  York 

1  Tribune,  June  19;  Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  2860,  p.  165. 

*  Argus,  June  25.  This  statement  was  in  part  confirmed  by  Sanford 
E.  Church,  who  said:  "  While  we  supported  Mr.  Douglas  with  earnest 
ness  and  sincerity,  because  we  knew  he  was  the  choice  of  nine-tenths 
of  the  Democracy  of  the  State,  yet  had  the  seceders  remained  in  the 
convention,  and  had  it  become  evident  that  Mr.  Douglas  could  not  se 
cure  the  nomination  by  the  regular,  legitimate  rule  of  the  Democratic 
party,  we  should  have  been  ready  to  vote  for  any  other  candidate  who 
stood  upon  the  Democratic  platform  and  who  would  have  received  the 
fair  nomination  of  the  convention  "  (Speech  of  Church,  Argus,  June  28) . 


5g          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [258 

delegation  roted  for  him;  Richmond,  however,  after  con 
ferences  declined  the  offer  because  of  his  inability  to  carry 
with  him  his  friends  in  the  delegation.1  There  is  no  neces 
sary  inconsistency  between  these  two  statements.  Richmond 
perhaps  was  ready  for  a  coup;  but  in  the  delegation  there 
were  not  only  staunch  Douglas  men,  like  Church,  but  also 
Dickinson  men  who  probably  could  not  have  been  brought 
to  Seymour's  support ;  as  for  the  others,  it  was  not  apparent 
that  Douglas  men  from  other  states  could  have  been  in 
duced,  in  sufficient  numbers,  to  transfer  their  votes  to  Sey 
mour.  Meanwhile,  it  was  far  more  preferable  for  the  Re 
gency  to  stick  to  Douglas  rather  than  risk  Dickinson's  nomi 
nation.  As  one  correspondent  put  it,  the  Regency  leaders 
found  that  New  York  could  not  "  cut  Douglas'  throat  with 
out  having  her  own  cut  in  turn."  2 

The  crucial  question  was  that  of  the  admission  of  the 
delegates  who  had  seceded  at  Charleston  or  of  the  Douglas 
contestants  who  had  been  chosen  in  the  interval.  To  give 
to  the  former  the  seats  would  have  meant  the  killing-off  of 
Douglas,  which  would  have  prepared  the  way  for  a  com 
promise  candidate.  Without  New  York's  thirty-five  votes, 
there  were  110^2  votes  favorable  to  and  99^2  votes  against 
the  admission  of  the  seceders.3  New  York  was  ready  to 
make  further  concessions  both  as  to  the  admission  of  dele 
gates  and  as  to  candidates,  had  sufficient  assurances  been 
given  that  no  further  secession  would  occur;  but  it  was  not 
willing  to  adopt  a  platform  such  as  the  Southerners  de 
manded.4  For  two  days,  the  Regency  leaders  "  shivered  on 

1  Article  by  John  Cochrane  in  the  Magazine  of  American  History, 
xiv,  pp.  151,  623. 

*  Tribune,  June  21;  partly  confirmed  by  Halstead,  Political  Conven 
tions  of  I860,  p.  227. 

*  Herald,  June  20. 

*  Speech  of  Sanford  E.   Church,  Argus,  June  28;    Argus  editorial, 
June  25. 


259]        THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          59 

the  brink  of  a  decision,"  1  meanwhile  keeping  the  conven 
tion  and  the  political  world  in  suspense.  At  last,  after  a 
prolonged  contest  in  caucus,  the  delegation  decided  by  a 
vote  of  40  to  29  in  favor  of  the  report  of  the  majority  of 
the  committee  on  credentials  which  recommended  the  ad 
mission  of  the  new  Douglas  delegations  from  Alabama  and 
Louisiana.2 

Even  then,  the  New  Yorkers  were  said  to  have  held  the 
way  open  to  harmonious  action.  A  motion  to  lay  upon  the 
table  the  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  con 
vention  had  refused  to  substitute  the  resolutions  of  the  minor 
ity  of  the  committee  on  credentials  for  those  of  the  ma 
jority  report,  was  defeated  by  the  votes  of  the  New  York 
delegation.  Thus  a  reconsideration  was  still  possible  when 
the  convention  adjourned  to  the  evening.  Douglas  had 
already  written  to  Richardson  of  Illinois  authorizing  the 
withdrawal  of  his  name,  and  on  the  morning  when  the  de 
cisive  vote  was  taken,  had  telegraphed  to  the  same  effect  to 
Dean  Richmond.  The  conditions  attached  to  this  offer, 
namely  that  the  unity  of  the  party  could  thereby  be  pre 
served  and  that  a  non-intervention  Union-loving  Democrat 
should  receive  the  nomination,3  were  such  as  to  create  the 
opportunity  for  New  York  to  get  the  prize,  if  only  the  South 
could  have  been  appeased.  The  New  Yorkers  endeavored 
to  learn  from  the  delegates  who  threatened  to  leave  the  con 
vention  what  they  desired.  As  the  admission  not  only  of 
the  Louisiana  seceders  but  also  of  those  from  Alabama  and 
the  adoption  of  the  original  majority  report  at  Charleston 

1  Tribune,  June  21. 

'Protest  of  twenty-nine  members  of  the  delegation  printed  in  the 
Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  30;  see  also  Herald,  June  22;  Tribune, 
June  22. 

"Halstead,  Political  Conventions  of  1860 ,  pp.  194-5. 


60          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [26o 

were  asked  as  the  price  of  harmony,  the  New  York  delega 
tion  found  itself  helpless  to  patch  up  a  peace,  for  such  terms 
could  not,  of  course,  have  been  accepted  by  it.1  The  tele 
gram  to  Richmond  was  suppressed  and  Douglas  was  nomi 
nated. 

The  times  were  particularly  favorable  to  a  third-party 
movement.  These  were  the  days  when  great  Union-sav 
ing  meetings  on  the  basis  of  compromise  and  concession 
were  common  through  the  North  and  not  less  so  in  New 
York  State.  There,  as  elsewhere,  many  finding  no  haven 
in  either  the  Republican  or  Democratic  camps  and  dislik 
ing  or  fearing  extreme  and  sectional  agitation,  sought  a 
political  party  which  would  prevent  the  threatened  rup 
ture.  After  the  events  at  Charleston  had  shown  clearly 
how  matters  were  drifting,  the  necessity  for  a  conservative 
Union  party  seemed  to  many  the  more  evident.  In  New 
York,  the  elements  ready  for  amalgamation  into  such  an 
organization  were  more  promising  to  the  politicians  than  in 
some  states.  The  success  of  the  balance-of-power  ticket  in 
1859  was  recalled  as  showing  what  could  be  done  here. 
Besides  those  impelled  by  love  of  country  into  such  a  move 
ment,  there  was  a  powerful  commercial  class  in  New  York 
City  which  would  probably  support  any  means  of  safeguard 
ing  their  Southern  interests.  In  brief,  it  was  hoped  to  unite 
every  man  without  the  Democratic  party  who  was  opposed 
to  Seward  and  his  extreme  doctrines. 

In  the  middle  of  January,  1860,  a  National  Union  Ex 
ecutive  Committee  of  New  York  was  formed.  The  transi 
tion  of  the  American  party  to  the  new  organization  may  be 

1The  last  twelve  lines  of  the  narrative  above  are  based  upon  a  speech 
by  John  Stryker,  a  delegate  at  Charleston,  printed  in  the  Argus,  Aug. 
20  (citing  the  Rome  Sentinel},  corrected  by  Halstead,  Political  Con 
ventions  of  I860,  p.  194;  also  partly  confirmed  by  the  speech  of  Sanford 
E.  Church  in  the  convention  (Halstead,  pp.  215-216);  see  also  Halstead, 
p.  228. 


26i]         THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          6l 

placed  at  a  convention  attended  by  but  nineteen  men  at  Bing- 
hampton  a  month  later,  when  resolutions  were  adopted 
stating  that  the  National  Union  organization  had  the  hearty 
sympathy  and  cooperation  of  those  who  had  supported  the 
American  balance-of-power  ticket  of  the  previous  year,  and 
pledging  support  to  all  measures  of  the  new  party  which 
should  be  in  favor  of  the  Union,  the  Constitution,  and  the 
enforcement  of  the  laws.1  Soon  after,  ex-Governor  Wash 
ington  Hunt,  ex-Congressman  George  Briggs,  and  Francis 
Granger  were  among  those  from  New  York  State  who 
signed  the  address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  adopted 
by  the  new  Constitutional  Union  party.2 

In  this  State,  a  call  for  a  National  Union  State  Conven 
tion  was  issued  by  three  representatives  from  the  old-line 
Whigs,  three  from  the  American  State  Committee,  three 
from  the  New  York  City  Union  Executive  Committee,  and 
three  from  the  National  Union  Committee.3  This  conven 
tion  met  at  Troy  on  April  i8th.  William  C.  Hasbrouck, 
an  old-line  Whig  and  ex-speaker  of  the  assembly,  pre 
sided.  An  almost  complete  set  of  delegates,  headed  by 
Washington  Hunt  and  Erastus  Brooks,  was  chosen  to  repre 
sent  New  York  at  the  National  Union  Convention ;  but  with 
an  eye  to  future  combination  with  the  Democrats,  a  resolu 
tion  was  adopted  that  action  on  the  nomination  of  a  distinct 
electoral  ticket  should  be  finally  determined  at  a  future  state 
convention.4 

The  nomination  of  Bell  seems  to  have  caused  some  dissat 
isfaction  in  this  State.  The  New  York  delegation  at  Balti- 

1  Herald,  Feb.  16;  Tribune,  Feb.  18. 

'Printed  in  the  Herald,  Feb.  21. 

8  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Mar.  7. 

4  Herald,  April  20;  Tribune,  April  20,  24. 


62          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [262 

more  favored  Houston,1  and  there  were  signs  in  New  York 
of  considerable  sentiment  for  the  Texan  even  after  Bell  and 
Everett  had  been  nominated.2  Nevertheless,  the  nominees 
were  promptly  ratified  at  a  large  Cooper  Institute  meeting; 8 
the  organization  of  clubs  was  reported  as  proceeding 
throughout  the  State ; 4  and  ex-President  Fillmore  an 
nounced  his  intention  of  voting  for  the  ticket.5 

The  Republicans  of  New  York  State  entered  upon  the 
campaign  far  more  united  than  did  their  opponents,  and 
this  despite  the  grievous  disappointment  which  Lincoln's 
nomination  caused  to  thousands.  The  evidence  that  Seward 
was  the  choice  of  the  great  majority  of  New  York  Repub 
licans  is  quite  conclusive.  True,  there  was  in  the  early  part 
of  the  year  activity  among  Chase's  friends,6  and  in  Febru 
ary  the  Tribune  came  out  for  Bates.7  The  opposition  to 
Weed  was  to  some  extent 8  synonymous  with  antagonism  to 
Seward.  H.  B.  Stanton,  Lieutenant-Governor  Campbell, 
and  William  Cullen  Bryant  privately  at  least  were  against 
Se ward's  nomination.9  Yet,  in  a  lengthy  estimate  of  Re 
publican  sentiment  throughout  the  State,  written  by  a  cor 
respondent  evidently  strongly  desirous  of  exaggerating  the 
possibility  of  a  split  in  the  Republican  ranks,  the  writer 

1  Herald,  May  9,  n.     Speech  of  Brooks  at  a  Bell-Everett  ratification 
meeting,  Herald,  June  9. 

2  Houston  and  Stockton  were  nominated  for  president  and  vice-presi 
dent  at  a  meeting  held  at  Schenectady  in  July.     A  full  set  of  electors 
was    named,    but    Houston    later    declined    (Tribune,    July  19).      A 
demonstration  in  favor  of  Houston's  nomination,  held  in  Union  Square 
at  the  end  of  May,  was  well  attended  (Herald,  May  30). 

3  Herald,  June  9.  *  Herald,  May  3. 

5  Letter  of  Fillmore,  read  at  a  Bell- Everett  meeting,  Herald,  June  9. 

6  Herald,  Feb.  25.  7  Tribune,  Feb.  20. 

8  Bryant  to  Bigelow,  Dec.  14,  1859,  in  Godwin's  Bryant,  ii,  p.  127. 

9  Hart's  Chase,  p.  185;  Bigelow  to  Bryant,  in  Bancroft's  Seward,  i, 
p.  528. 


263]        THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          63 

failed  to  find  any  section  where  considerable  feeling  against 
Seward  existed  except  in  Erie  County,  and  there  it  was  at 
tributed  to  the  wish  to  conciliate  the  friends  of  Fillmore; 
the  conclusion  was  reached  that,  taking  the  State  as  a  whole, 
Seward  was  the  first  choice  and  the  man  whom  a  large  ma 
jority  of  the  Republicans  desired  to  see  nominated.1  At 
the  meeting  of  the  Republican  State  Committee  to  arrange 
for  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  Chicago  convention,  a 
difference  arose  as  to  the  manner  of  choosing  the  delegates, 
several  members  of  the  committee  favoring  election  by  con 
gressional  districts.  Behind  this  move  can  be  seen  an  at 
tempted  revolt  against  Weed.  Yet  the  committeemen  were 
reported  as  expressing  without  exception  their  preference 
for  Seward's  nomination.2  Furthermore,  when  the  Re 
publican  State  Convention  met  in  April,  1860,  but  one  reso 
lution  was  adopted,  and  that  amidst  uproarious  applause 
and  evidently  with  no  opposition;  this  resolution  presented 
the  name  of  Seward  for  the  presidential  nomination.8 

Weed  was  not  a  delegate  at  Chicago,  but  he  was  there 
as  Seward's  chief  manager.  The  picturesque  details  of  the 
operations  of  Weed  on  the  one  hand  and  of  Greeley,  who 
was  a  delegate  from  Oregon,  on  the  other,  have  been  so 
often  told  as  to  render  unnecessary  their  repetition.4  It 
is  sufficient  to  note  here  that  the  close  association  between 
Seward  and  Weed,  together  with  a  feeling  that  the  influences 
of  the  Albany  lobby  would,  in  the  event  of  Seward's  elec- 

1  Herald,  Feb.  25;  compare  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  261. 
"-  Herald,  Feb.  i;  Ttibune,  Feb.  i,  2. 

3  Herald,  April  19;  Tribune,  April  19. 

4  E.  g.,  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln,  ii,  p.  262  et  seq.;  Bancroft's  Sew 
ard,  i,  p.  531  et  seq.;  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  269;  Tarbell's  Lincoln, 
i,  p.   342  et   seq.;  Schurz's  Reminiscences,  ii,  p.  176  et  seq.;  Field's 
Field,  p.  136  et  seq. 


64          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [264 

tion,  be  transferred  to  Washington,1  did  far  more,  probably, 
to  defeat  Seward  than  did  the  efforts  of  Greeley,  George 
Opdyke,  and  David  Dudley  Field.2  Greeley  and  Field,  it  is 
true,  were  exceedingly  active  against  Seward.3  After  Lin 
coln's  nomination,  some  attributed  to  them  and  especially  to 
the  Tribune  editor,  the  blame  or  praise  (according  to  the 
point  of  view)  for  bringing  about  the  result.  Greeley  in  his 
paper  disclaimed  the  responsibility.  Immediately  after  the 
convention,  he  wrote  that  the  most  influential  delegates — es 
pecially  Curtin  and  Lane — were  against  Seward,  and  that 
the  New  York  Senator  would  have  been  stronger  in  the  con 
vention  but  for  Weed's  presence  and  support.4  However 
effective  or  ineffective  Greeley's  efforts  were,  they  served 
to  prepare  the  way  for  the  future  enmities  in  the  party  in 
New  York  State  by  winning  for  him  the  bitter  dislike  of 
Seward's  friends. 

The  effect  of  Lincoln's  nomination  upon  New  York  Re 
publicans  was  eagerly  watched.  Before  the  convention, 
Seward  men  had  been  very  confident,  and  hence  the  blow 
was  felt  all  the  more.  The  disappointment  of  New  York  Re- 

1  Hart's  Chase,  p.  184  et  seg.;Schurz's  Reminiscences,  ii,  p.  184;  Ban 
croft's  Seward,  i,  pp.  524-5;  Welles'  Lincoln  and  Seward,  p.  27;  Argus, 
April  10, 1861;  Bryant  to  Bigelow  (on  the  effect  of  the  fact  referred  to  in 
weakening  Seward's  prospects)  in  Godwin's  Bryant,  ii,  p.  127. 

'Chicago  correspondence  of  the  Herald,  June  19;  New  York  Times, 
quoted  in  the  Tribune,  May  26.  Greeley,  while  declaring  that  Seward's 
association  with  Weed  had  been  used  with  great  effect  against  Seward, 
positively  denied  that  he  had  used  that  argument.  He  said  that  he 
"carried  none  of  New  York's  dirty  linen  to  the  Chicago  laundry,  and 
never  voluntarily  spoke  of  the  distractions  and  complications  of  our 
New  York  politics,  save  to  a  New  Yorker"  {Tribune,  May  26). 

3 Herald,  May  15, 16,  17,  18;  Ingersoll's  Life  of  Greeley,  p. 339;  Field's 
Life  of  David  Dudley  Field,  p.  125  et  seq. 
4  Tribune,  May  28. 


265]         THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          65 

publicans  generally  was  certainly  apparent ; *  and  of  Thur- 
low  Weed  and  the  ardent  friends  of  Seward,  it  was  intense. 
Democrats  for  a  few  days  hoped  for  and  professed  to  see 
a  refusal  on  the  part  of  Seward  Republicans  cordially  to 
support  Lincoln.  The  tone  of  the  chief  Seward  organs  in 
the  State  lent  justification  to  these  hopes.  The  Albany 
Evening  Journal  published  a  mournful  editorial  letter, 
written  by  Weed's  associate  George  Dawson,  which  said : 
"  Misrepresentation  has  achieved  its  work.  The  timid  and 
credulous  have  succumbed  to  threats  and  perversions.  .  .  . 
The  recognized  standard  bearer  of  the  Republican  party 
has  been  sacrificed  upon  the  altar  of  fancied  availability. 
The  sacrifice  was  cruel  and  unnecessary."  And  although 
Lincoln  and  his  friends  were  absolved  from  blame  for  this 
result,  yet  the  writer  remarked  that  the  candidate  did  not 
owe  his  nomination  to  Seward's  adherents,  but  "  to  other 
men  and  to  other  influences.  .  .  .  Upon  them  devolves  the 
responsibility  of  the  campaign."  2 

Webb  in  the  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer  and  Ray 
mond  -in  the  New  York  Times  opened  fire  upon  Greeley. 
Replying  to  the  latter's  denial  of  having  brought  about 
Seward's  defeat,  Webb  declared  that 

a  more  deliberate  and  wicked  falsehood  than  this  never  found 
publicity,  even  through  the  columns  of  the  Tribune  ...  It 
was  under  the  garb  of  friendship  that  the  viper  struck  the 

1  Tribune,  May  19,  26  (Rochester  Correspondence);  Herald,  May  22 
(effect  in  Albany);  A.  B.  Cornell's  Ezra  Cornell,  p.  136;  F.  W.  Sew 
ard's  Seward  at  Washington,  ii,  pp.  452-3. 

'Albany  Evening  Journal,  May  21.  Dawson  distinctly  disclaimed 
having  consulted  Weed  in  regard  to  the  matter  in  this  letter;  he,  how 
ever,  probably  gave  utterance  to  sentiments  common  to  both.  See  ac 
count  of  McClure's  interview  with  Weed  on  the  evening  after  the  nomi 
nation  was  made:  "He  [Weed]  .  .  .  intimated  very  broadly  that 
Pennsylvania,  having  defeated  Seward,  could  now  elect  Curtin  and 
Lincoln"  (McClure's  Lincoln  and  Men  of  War  Times,  p.  35]. 


66          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [266 

blow ;  it  was  as  the  long-tried  and  well  known  friend  of 
Seward,  shedding  crocodile  tears  over  his  unavailability,  that 
he  [Greeley]  poisoned  the  minds  of  the  leading  men  in  the 
Convention  and  created  doubts  in  regard  to  Mr.  Seward's 
strength  .  .  .  l 

In  another  issue,  Webb  said  that  "  even  the  enemies  of  Re 
publicanism  .  .  .  should  execrate  the  conduct  of  the  viper, 
which  warmed  into  life  and  power  by  his  [Seward's]  coun 
tenance  .  .  .  used  the  life  and  power  thus  bestowed,  to 
sting  to  death  his  benefactor  and  confiding  friend."  Then 
Webb  went  on  to  attack  Greeley's  personal  character,  say 
ing  that  the  Tribune  editor  was  "  a  coarse  man  "  and  pos 
sessed 

none  of  the  instincts  of  a  gentleman  .  .  .  The  Empire  State 
is  Republican  to  the  core ;  but  let  it  be  proclaimed  that  Horace 
Greeley  is  to  guide  her,  and  he  and  his  friends  to  receive  the 
credit  of  the  work  to  be  done  .  .  .  ,  neither  Seward  nor  his 
friends  .  .  .  will  avail  to  make  the  people  wake  up  from  the 
apathy  which  now  pervades  the  State  from  a  mere  suspicion 
that  those  who  cheated  us  at  Chicago  are  now  engineering  the 
machine  for  the  coming  election.2 

Raymond,  on  the  way  home  from  the  convention,  after 
stopping  at  Auburn,  wrote  a  savage  attack  upon  Greeley  for 
his  share  in  defeating  Seward.  Greeley  was  accused  of 
gaining  the  confidence  of  delegates  "  by  professions  of  re 
gard  and  the  most  zealous  friendship  for  Governor  Seward, 
but  presenting  defeat,  even  in  New  York,  as  the  inevitable 
result  of  his  nomination,"  and  of  privately  repudiating  all 
further  political  friendship  with  Seward  because  the  latter 

1  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer,  quoted  in  the  Herald,  May  31. 
J  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  14. 


267]         THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          67 

"had  never  aided  or  advised  his  [Greeley's]  elevation  to 
office."  *  Greeley,  while  pleading  not  guilty  to  the  first  two 
charges,  was  irritated  by  the  last.  He  held  Seward  respon 
sible  for  it,  and  in  the  Tribune  called  upon  the  New  York 
Senator  for  the  private  letter  2  which  Greeley  had  written 
to  Seward  in  November,  1854,  in  order  that  it  might  be 
printed  verbatim  and  that  every  reader  might  judge  how 
far  it  sustained  the  accusation.3  Greeley 's  famous  epistle 
dissolving  the  political  partnership  with  Seward  and  Weed 
was  duly  returned  by  Seward  and  published  in  the  Tribune, 
accompanied  by  a  long  editorial  signed  by  Greeley,  wherein 
he  defended  himself  and  assailed  Raymond  and  Webb.4  No 
immediate  effect  upon  the  campaign  was  apparent  from  this 
incident.  Yet,  the  chance  of  healing  the  breach  between 
Greeley  and  Weed  was  doubtless  lessened  from  this  time. 

Notwithstanding  the  absolution  of  Lincoln  from  blame 
for  Seward's  defeat  and  the  pledges  of  loyalty  to  the  ticket, 
this  warfare  among  the  four  leading  Republican  journals  of 
the  State  might  well  have  encouraged  the  Democrats.5 
However,  from  the  very  first,  there  were  reassuring  signs. 
The  nominations  were  received  with  the  usual  salutes  of  one 
hundred  guns,  and  the  prevailing  tone  of  the  earliest  rati- 

1  New  York  Times,  May  24. 

2  For  this  incident,  see  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  277  et  seq. 

3  Tribune,  May  25. 

^Tribune,  June  14.  In  the  Tribune  of  May  31,  Greeley  had  made  a 
bitter  attack  upon  Raymond. 

5  "The  nomination  of  Lincoln  places  the  recovery  of  this  State  from 
Black  Republican  misrule  clearly  within  reach  of  the  Democratic 
party" — New  York  News,  quoted  by  the  Argus,  May  23;  upon  which 
the  Argus  comments:  "When  the  New  York  delegation  go  to  Balti 
more  they  cannot  be  taunted  as  at  Charleston,  with  representing  a  Re 
publican  State!  New  York  is  Democratic  by  20,000  majority;  .  .  ." 
Another  editorial  in  the  Argus  of  May  19  said,  "The  Republican  party 
is  struck  with  a  paralytic  stroke,  especially  in  the  State  of  New  York.  .  ." 


68          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [268 

fication  meetings  was,  along  with  regret,  confidence  in  the 
nominees  and  a  determination  to  give  them  a  hearty  sup 
port.1  The  Republican  press,  including  the  principal  Seward 
organs,  coupled  their  sorrow  with  hearty  acquiescence  in  the 
convention's  decision,2  and  had  nothing  but  praise  for  Lin 
coln  and  Hamlin  and  predictions  of  their  election. 

Above  all,  Seward  did  not  sulk  in  his  tent,  though  his 
correspondence  shows  how  much  he  felt  his  defeat.3  How 
ever,  under  date  of  May  2ist,  he  wrote  to  the  New  York 
City  Republican  Committee  declining  an  invitation  to  a  pro 
posed  demonstration  in  his  honor  and  at  the  same  time  stoi 
cally  declaring  that  the  presentation  of  his  name  at  Chi 
cago  was  the  act  of  his  friends  and  the  disappointment 
theirs,  not  his.  He  said  that  he  had  no  sentiment  of  either 
disappointment  or  discontent,  and  that  the  resolutions  of  the 
convention  were  as  satisfactory  to  him  as  if  framed  by  his 
own  hands ;  and  he  saw  in  the  candidates 

eminent  and  able  republicans,  ...  I  cheerfully  give  them  a 

1  Herald,  May  19,  23;  Tribune,  May  19;  Albany  Evening  Journal, 
May  23. 

2 The  Albany  Evening  Journal  of  May  19  said:  "We  place  at  the 
head  of  our  columns  this  evening  the  nominations  of  the  National  Con 
vention.  They  will  command  the  united  support  of  all  those  who 
cherish  a  devotion  to  the  principles  of  the  Republican  party."  In  the 
same  issue,  it  said:  "  It  would  be  idle  to  attempt  to  disguise  the  disap 
pointment  which  the  people  of  this  State  feel  at  the  failure  of  the  Chi 
cago  Convention  to  place  in  nomination  for  President  the  candidate  of 
their  own  State.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  nomination  which 
was  made  is  regarded  as  the  very  next  choice  of  the  Republicans  of 
New  York."  See  also  editorials  of  May  23,  24,  25,  28.  ^The  New  York 
Courier  and  Enquirer  said,  "  we  bow  to  the  decision  "  (quoted  by  the 
Tribune,  May  21.  Similar  extracts  from  up-state  Republican  papers 
in  the  same). 

8  Bancroft's  Seward,  i,  p.  543;  F.  W.  Seward's  Seward  at  Washington, 
",  P-  454- 


269]        THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1860          69 

sincere  and  earnest  support.  I  trust,  moreover,  that  those 
with  whom  I  have  labored  so  long  .  .  .  [will]  .  .  indulge  me 
in  a  confident  belief  that  no  sense  of  disappointment  will  be 
allowed  by  them  to  hinder  or  delay  or  in  any  way  embarrass 
the  progress  of  that  cause  .  .  . 1 

In  the  early  part  of  July,  it  became  known  that  Seward 
would  take  the  stump  in  behalf  of  Lincoln ; z  and  later,  he 
did  so.  *;•*& 

Lastly,  it  may  be  noted  that  Weed  visited  Lincoln,  and 
came  away  apparently  satisfied.  Thus,  though  the  news 
paper  war  continued  for  a  while,  by  the  beginning  of 
summer  the  Republican  party  in  New  York  State  was  in 
hearty  accord  in  support  of  the  nominees.  A  few  weeks 
after  the  election,  Swett  wrote  to  Weed :  "  We  all  feel  that 
New  York  and  the  friends  of  Seward  have  acted  nobly. 
They  have  not  only  done  their  whole  duty  to  their  party, 
but  they  have  been  most  generous  and  magnanimous."  3 

1  Printed  in  the  Herald,  May  25. 

1  Reply  to  invitation  of  Michigan  Republicans,  in  Herald,  July  4. 

3  Swett  to  Weed,  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  301. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE 

DURING  the  summer  the  question  of  most  interest  in  New 
York  politics  was  whether  a  fusion  of  the  various  anti-Lin 
coln  parties  would  be  effected.  It  was  recognized,  of  course, 
that  the  division  of  the  Democracy,  if  continued,  would  en 
sure  Republican  victory;  and  consequently,  no  sooner  were 
the  Baltimore  and  Richmond  *  conventions  adjourned  than 
suggestions  for  running  a  fusion  electoral  ticket  in  North 
ern  states  where  there  was  a  chance  of  Democratic  success 
were  made.2  Most  important  of  all  to  defeat  Lincoln  was 
New  York.  The  loss  of  its  thirty-five  electoral  votes,  even 
if  the  Republicans  carried  every  other  Northern  and  every 
Western  state,  was  sufficient  to  elect  a  Democrat  or  to  send 
the  election  into  the  House.  This  could  not  be  said  of  any 
other  single  state. 

Moreover,  there  were  hopeful  features  for  the  Demo 
crats,  if  only  a  fusion  could  be  brought  about.  Though 
the  Republicans  had  carried  New  York  in  1856,  there  re 
mained  as  an  uncertain  element  the  large  vote  for  Fillmore 
—124,000,  or  almost  21  per  cent  of  the  whole.  In  1859,  the 
Americans  had  run  what  was  called  a  "  balance  of  power  " 
ticket,  composed  of  half  of  the  Republican  and  of  half  of 
the  Democratic  nominees,  with  the  result  that  those  on  the 
Republican  and  balance-of-power  tickets  had  45,000  ma- 

^he  seceders  at  Charleston  later  met  in  convention  at  Richmond, 
and  joined  in  the  nomination  of  Breckinridge  and  Lane.  See  Rhodes, 
History  of  the  United  States,  ii,  p.  475. 

*  Herald,  June  25. 

70  [270 


2ji]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  71 

jority  while  those  on  the  Democratic  and  balance-of-power 
tickets  had  1,000  majority,  showing  an  American  strength 
of  23,000.  If  the  stay-at-home  voters  at  the  election  of 
1859  should  cast  their  ballots  at  the  coming  contest  in  the 
same  proportion  as  the  votes  cast  in  1859  showed,  the  Re 
publicans  would  be  in  an  absolute  minority.  Then  too,  the 
Democratic  vote  for  governor  in  1857  compared  with  that 
for  Buchanan  in  1856  increased  by  35,000,  while  the  Re 
publican  vote  decreased  by  30,000  and  the  Know  Nothing 
by  64,000.  In  1859,  the  Democratic  and  American  candi 
date  for  secretary  of  state  received  22,000  votes  more  than 
the  Democratic  candidate  for  governor  in  1857,  while  the 
Republicans  who  were  endorsed  by  the  Americans  received 
but  4,000  over  the  Republican  vote  of  1857.  All  this  en 
couraged  the  belief  that  the  major  part  of  the  former  Know 
Nothings  were  opposed  to  the  Republicans  and  could  be 
drawn  to  the  support  of  a  fusion  electoral  ticket  in  favor 
of  conservative  principles. 

One  of  the  earliest  and  most  energetic  supporters  of  a 
united  anti-Lincoln  campaign  was  Mayor  Wood.1  At  the 
end  of  June,  he  was  reported  as  conferring  with  Breckin- 
ridge,  Douglas,  and  the  President  upon  the  subject.2  A  day 
later,  the  press  published  the  statement  that  Wood  had  been 
in  consultation  with  his  former  arch  enemy,  Dean  Rich 
mond.3  The  result  was  a  burying  of  the  hatchet  by  these 
two  politicians.  About  the  same  time  the  Mozart  Hall  Gen 
eral  Committee,  doubtless  at  Wood's  bidding,  adopted  reso 
lutions  which,  while  reaffirming  their  principles  as  to  the 
duty  of  the  coordinate  branches  of  the  federal  government 
to  protect  the  constitutional  rights  of  all  persons  in  the  ter- 

1  Letter  of  Wood  to  J.  J.  Van  Allen,  printed  in  the  Herald,  July  7. 

"Herald,  June  27. 

3  Herald,  June  28;   Tribune,  June  28. 


j2          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [272 

ritories,  at  the  same  time  earnestly  recommended  the  nomi 
nation  of  a  joint  electoral  ticket,  and  they  further  declared 
that  if  this  could  not  be  effected,  the  national  Democracy  in 
this  State  ought  to  support  Douglas  inasmuch  as  his  follow 
ers  were  the  most  numerous  of  the  anti-Lincoln  parties  in 
New  York.1  These  resolutions  did  not  go  through  without 
some  dissent.2  Nevertheless,  the  Mozart  General  Com 
mittee  later  unanimously  adopted  resolutions  offered  by 
Wood,  declaring  it  incumbent  upon  all  good  Democrats  to 
bow  to  the  decision  made  by  the  Democratic  National  Con 
vention,  "  previous  to  any  disagreement  or  dissension 
therein,"  against  the  regularity  of  the  state  committee 
headed  by  John  A.  Green,  and  "  to  cease  hostility  to  the 
State  organization  recognized  by  a  united  National  Conven 
tion  ".  Moreover,  by  these  resolutions  steps  were  taken 
toward  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  coming  state  con 
vention,  and  such  delegates  were  instructed  to  exert  their 
influence  tov/ard  accomplishing  a  union  of  all  opposed  to 
black  republicanism  upon  one  electoral  and  state  ticket.3 
Such  an  attitude  on  Mozart's  part  was  a  considerable  ad 
vance  toward  producing  a  united  front  against  the  Repub 
licans.  A  conference  in  July,  having  the  same  object  in 
view,  was  attended  by  prominent  Democrats,  including  John 
A.  Dix,  Edwin  Croswell,  John  Van  Buren,  Dean  Rich 
mond,  Calvert  Comstock,  Charles  O'Conor,  James  T. 
Brady,  and  Elijah  F.  Purely.4  About  the  same  time,  the 
Albany  Argus  declared  in  favor  of  fusion  and  thereafter 
repeatedly  urged  it.5 

1  Resolutions  printed  in  the  Herald,  June  30. 

2  Letter  signed  "Member  of  the  Mozart  Hall  General  Committee, 
printed  in  the  Herald,  July  2;  Herald,  July  14. 

3  Resolutions  printed  in  the  Herald,  Aug.  3.  * Herald,  July  17. 
5  Argus,  July  11,  18,  21,  and  throughout  August. 


273]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  I86°  73 

The  supporters  of  Bell  and  Everett,  led  by  Washington 
Hunt,  were  from  the  very  start  anxious  to  promote  fusion. 
They  had  much  to  gain  by  it,  and  nothing  to  lose.  Running 
a  separate  ticket  was  recognized  by  them  as  hopeless,  for 
they  had  neither  the  powerful  press  nor  the  excellent  or-* 
ganization  which  the  Know  Nothings  had  in  I856.1  The 
Bell-Everett  men  professed  to  hope  that  if  fusion  were  ef 
fected,  the  election  would  be  thrown  into  the  House,  when 
Bell  would  have  a  good  chance  of  being  chosen  president.2 
With  them,  however,  the  defeat  of  Lincoln  rather  than  the 
success  of  their  own  candidate  was  the  chief  aim;  and  it 
was  quite  evident  that  a  second  conservative  electoral  ticket 
would  merely  increase  Lincoln's  prospects  of  carrying  New 
York.3 

There  were,  however,  great  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
bringing  about  a  combination  of  such  diverse  elements.  The 
Douglas  National  Committee,  at  the  end  of  June,  recom 
mended  to  the  various  state  committees  that  the  latter  take 
measures  to  run  in  their  respective  states  an  electoral  ticket 
pledged  to  the  unequivocal  support  of  Douglas  and  John 
son.4  In  July,  the  Douglas  National  Executive  Committee 
pronounced  in  favor  of  a  "  fair  and  square  fight  with  the 
Breckinridge  party,"  and  declared  that  no  compromise  what 
ever  was  admissible.5  To  many  Douglas  adherents,  more- 

1  The  Fillmore  supporters  were  said  to  have  had  over  fifty  journals  in 
New  York  State,  whereas  in  August,  1860,  the  number  of  New  York 
papers  favoring  Bell  were  said  to  be  no  more  than  six,  and  those  gen 
erally  of  very  limited  influence  (Herald,  Aug.  2) . 

2  Speeches  of  Hunt:  at  the  Utica  convention   (Argus,  July  14),  at 
Albany    (Herald,   July  20),   at  New  York    City   (Herald,   Aug.    29); 
speech  of  James  Brooks  (Herald,  July  13). 

3  Speech  of   Hunt  justifying  the  fusion,  Herald,  Aug.  29;  letter  of 
Hunt  to  Crittenden  in  Chapman's  Life  of  Crittenden,  ii,  pp.  217-218. 

4  Resolutions  printed  in  the  Herald,  June  27. 

5 Manifesto  of  the  Douglas  National  Executive  Committee,  printed  in 
the  Herald,  July  19. 


74          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [274 

over,  it  seemed  that  the  proposed  fusion  would  be  of  little 
advantage  to  their  candidate,  for  Douglas  had  no  chance 
of  an  election  in  the  House.  On  the  other  hand,  many  of 
the  Breckinridge  men  were  filled  with  bitter  hatred  of  the 
Albany  Regency  because  of  its  alleged  treachery.  One 
correspondent  said  of  the  southern  tier  of  counties  in  this 
State:  "It  is  difficult  to  determine  .  .  .  which  curse  the 
other  the  loudest  and  deepest,  the  Breckinridgers  or  the 
Douglasites."  l 

Daniel  S.  Dickinson  especially  poured  out  invective  upon 
the  Regency  leaders.  At  a  Breckinridge  meeting,  he  de 
clared  that  those 

who  ruled,  and  dictated  to,  and  wielded  the  vote  of  the  New 
York  delegation,  through  the  fraudulent  process  of  a  unit 
vote  .  .  .  will  hereafter  be  known  by  the  name  plainly  branded 
upon  their  guilty  foreheads  at  Charleston — "  political  gam 
blers  " — as  creatures  who  hang  festering  upon  the  lobbies  of 
State  and  federal  legislation  to  purchase  chartered  privilege 
and  immunity  by  corrupt  appliances ;  who  thrive  in  the  foetid 
atmosphere,  and  swell  to  obese  proportions  like  vultures  upon 
offal;  office  brokers,  who  crawl  and  cringe  around  the  foot 
steps  of  power,  and  by  false  pretences  procure  themselves  or 
vile  tools  places  of  official  trust  .  .  .  they  have  torn  open  again 
its  [the  Democratic  party's]  wounds  to  subserve  their  own 
selfish  schemes,  and  now  let  division  be  the  order  of  the  day 
until  these  faithless  "  political  gamblers  "  are  driven  without 
the  pale  of  the  democratic  party  forever.2 

When  the  leading  adherent  of  Breckinridge  in  this  State 
talked  thus,  denouncing  the  principal  politicians  who  sup 
ported  Douglas  at  such  length  as  to  fill  two  newspaper  col 
umns  of  fine  print,  and  devoted  most  of  the  remainder  of  his 
speech  to  justifying  the  platform  and  the  regularity  of  the 
1  Herald,  July  25.  *  Herald,  July  19. 


275]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  75 

Breckinridge  ticket  in  contrast  with  the  Douglas  ticket,  hav 
ing  but  little  to  say  against  the  Republicans,  the  formation 
of  any  alliance  which  should  include  the  two  wings  of  the 
Democracy  was  plainly  up-hill  work. 

Another  obstacle  to  fusion  was  the  desire  of  the  sup 
porters  of  Breckinridge  for  a  general  decapitation  of  Douglas 
office-holders  by  the  national  administration.1  Of  such  a 
move  there  were  rumors  2  and  perhaps  a  beginning.3  Of 
course,  a  fusion  would  put  an  end  to  any  chance  of  a  pro 
scription.  Moreover,  it  was  recognized  that  the  running  of 
separate  state  tickets  would  weaken  a  joint  electoral  ticket, 
so  that  a  complete  union  of  those  opposed  to  Lincoln  neces 
sitated  besides  the  apportionment  of  electors  a  division  of 
the  nominations  for  state  offices. 

The  Constitutional  Union  Convention  was  the  first  of  the 
state  assemblages  to  meet.  It  made  no  nominations;  but 
instead,  under  the  influence  of  speeches  by  Hunt  and  James 
Brooks,  it  appointed  a  committee  authorized  to  form  an 
electoral  ticket  and  in  such  manner  as  should  be  deemed 
"  best  calculated  to  unite  the  National  Union  men  of  every 
name  and  designation  and  promote  the  election  "  of  Bell 

1  Herald,  Aug.  21,  Sept.  6. 

1  Herald,  May  19,  July  12;  Tribune,  July  2. 

'Removal  of  U.  S.  Marshal  Jewett  (Herald,  Aug.  8);  three  re 
movals  at  Albany  by  Collector  Schell  for  political  reasons  (Argus,  July 
25);  letter  from  a  correspondent  at  Pultneyville,  Wayne  County,  saying 
that  the  deputy-collector  of  that  port  had  been  removed  because  he  sup 
ported  Douglas  {Argus,  July  28) ;  citation  from  the  Jamaica  Democrat 
wherein  the  editor  stated  that  he  had  been  removed  from  office  by  Col 
lector  Schell  because  of  support  given  to  Douglas  (Argus,  July  19) . 
The  cases  of  Messrs.  Sanders  and  North  and  that  of  the  postmaster  at 
Albion  were  attributed  to  other  reasons  by  the  Argus  (July  13),  and 
President  Buchanan  was  declared  guiltless  of  having  followed  a  pro- 
scriptive  course.  Buchanan  in  a  letter  of  August  n  to  Halleck  said, 
"I  do  not  indulge  a  prescriptive  spirit,  and  have  not  removed  one  in 
twenty  of  the  Douglas  officeholders  "  (  Works,  ed.  by  Moore,  x,  p. 466) . 


76          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [276 

and  Everett.1  The  names  on  this  committee  show  as  promi 
nent  men  in  the  Bell-Everett  movement  in  this  State,  be 
sides  Hunt  and  the  two  Brookses,  William  Duer,  George 
Briggs,  Amos  H.  Prescott,  Lorenzo  Burrows,  and  Solomon 
G.  Havens,  all  of  whom  had  held  high  places  at  the  hands 
of  either  the  Whigs  or  the  Know  Nothings. 

Next  came  the  Breckinridge  State  Convention  at  Syra 
cuse  on  August  7th.  Here  a  further  division  of  the  De 
mocracy  was  threatened  by  the  fact  that  the  convention  met 
in  response  to  two  calls,  one  issued  by  John  A.  Green,  chair 
man  of  the  state  committee,  and  the  other  by  Augustus 
Schell  and  one  gentleman  from  each  congressional  district. 
A  contest  as  to  who  should  organize  the  body  seemed  not 
unlikely.2  At  the  last  moment,  however,  Schell  yielded  to 
Green.3  A  fortnight  before  the  convention,  the  leading 
Breckinridge  paper  in  the  State,  the  New  York  Journal  of 
Commerce*  advocated  such  a  policy  as  would  result  in  co 
operation  with  the  Douglas  and  Bell  men  in  running  an 
unpledged  electoral  ticket,  the  nominees  if  successful  to  vote 
for  Douglas  if  their  votes  would  elect  him,  but  for  Breckin 
ridge  or  Bell  if  by  so  doing  either  of  them  might  be  chosen 
president.  Such  an  arrangement,  it  was  urged,  might  give 
Breckinridge  the  prize,  whereas  New  York's  vote  could  not 
elect  Douglas;  if  the  contest  went  to  the  House,  Douglas 
had  no  chance,  while  Breckinridge  had  a  first-rate  one;  if 
neither  the  electoral  colleges  nor  the  House  chose  a  presi 
dent,  the  Senate  would  elect  Lane  vice-president  and  he 

1  Herald,  July  13;  Argus,  July  14. 
^Herald,  Aug.  7;  Argus,  Aug.  9. 

3  Herald,  Aug.  8;  Argus,  Aug.  9. 

4  The  New  York  World,  then  an  independent  paper,  declared  that  the 
Journal  of  Commerce  was  the  only  influential  Breckinridge  paper  in  the 
State  (  World,  Sept.  4) . 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  77 

would  become  acting  president.  The  writer  also  asserted 
that  a  letter  from  Mr.  Breckinridge  favoring  cooperation  had 
been  received  in  New  York  City.1  The  sentiment  of  the  dele 
gates,  however,  on  the  eve  of  the  convention  was  strongly 
opposed  to  any  arrangement  with  the  supporters  of  Douglas,2 
and  a  speech  by  Dickinson  still  further  weakened  the  hopes 
of  those  who  desired  to  leave  the  way  open  for  such  a  step.3 
A  full  set  of  presidential  electors  and  a  complete  state  ticket 
headed  by  James  T.  Brady  for  governor  was  nominated.4 
Brady  was  a  man  of  great  integrity,  eloquence,  and  legal 
learning,  and  of  fine  personality.  For  years  he  had  been 
one  of  the  leading  minds  of  the  New  York  bar.  He  was, 
apparently,  neither  a  politician  nor  an  office-seeker; 5  but  he 
consented  to  lead  a  forlorn  hope. 

The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  convention  equally  dis 
approved  of  the  "  plan  of  Abraham  Lincoln  for  interfering 
with  the  rights  of  slaveholders  in  the  Territories  by  act  of 
Congress,  and  the  plan  of  Stephen  Arnold  Douglas  for  in 
terfering  with  them  by  unfriendly  territorial  legislation." 
After  endorsing  the  national  platform  and  candidates  and 
Buchanan's  administration,  the  resolutions  went  on  to  "  re 
probate  and  condemn  in  unmeasured  terms  the  conduct  of 
the  controlling  majority  of  the  New  York  delegation  in  the 
National  Convention  at  Charleston  and  Baltimore,"  and 
charged  that  majority  with  "  the  disruption  and  division  of 
the  Democratic  party."  The  nominations  of  Douglas  and 
Johnson  were  declared  to  have  no  semblance  of  regularity 
whatever.  Other  resolutions  dealt  with  state  questions,  in- 

1  Citations  from  the  Journal  of  Commerce  in  the  Argus,  July  21, 
Aug.  3. 

5  Herald,  Aug.  7. 

8 Herald,  Aug.  8.  *  Ibid. 

5Breen's  Thirty  Years  of  New  York  Politics,  pp.  321,  322. 


78          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [278 

eluding  the  canals  and  railroad  charters.1  A  resolution  to 
appoint  a  committee  to  confer  with  similar  bodies  for  the 
purpose  of  uniting  upon  one  electoral  ticket  in  opposition 
to  the  Republicans,  with  power  to  substitute  others  for  those 
nominated  by  the  convention,  was  overwhelmingly  defeated. 
Later,  through  the  pleading  of  a  few,  a  resolution  was 
adopted  empowering  the  state  committee  to  confer,  if  it 
deemed  it  proper  to  do  so,  with  any  other  committee  ap 
pointed  for  the  purpose,  in  order  to  consolidate  upon  the 
principles  enunciated  by  the  convention  in  its  platform  those 
opposed  to  the  Republican  electoral  ticket.2  Of  course,  no 
cooperation  was  possible  —  and  probably  none  was  hoped 
for — on  the  basis  demanded,  since  it  could  not  have  been 
expected  that  the  Douglas  wing,  having  possession  of  the 
regular  state  and  county  organizations  as  well  as  control  of 
nearly  all  the  influential  papers  in  New  York,  would  yiekl 
their  principles  to  a  minority.  Thus,  the  action  of  the 
Breckinridge  men  did  not  augur  harmony  in  the  Democratic 
ranks. 

A  week  later  the  Douglas  State  Convention  assembled. 
After  the  temporary  organization  had  been  effected,  ex- 
Governor  Seymour  entertained  the  gathering  with  a  speech 
assailing  the  Republican  administration  of  the  State  and 
pleading  for  attention  to  ills  at  home.  New  York  City,  he 
said,  had  been  oppressed  and  deprived  of  self-government, 
while  the  State  had  been  heavily  burdened  with  taxation 
and  "stood  disgraced  amongst  her  sister  States  of  the  Con 
federacy  by  the  corruptions  of  her  legislatures  for  the  past 
two  years ;"  and  he  attributed  all  this  to  the  fact  that  "  the 
people  have  been  paying  so  much  attention  to  the  affairs  of 
other  States  that  they  have  neglected  the  interests  of  their 

1  Herald,  Aug.  9. 

*  Herald,  Aug.  9;  Tribune,  Aug.  10. 


279]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  79 

own."  *  The  customary  contest  between  Tammany  and 
Mozart  was  compromised  by  admitting  both  delegations 
.  upon  an  equality,  much  to  Tammany's  indignation.  When 
the  report  recommending  this  settlement  was  adopted,  Tam 
many  withdrew  for  consultation.  Later  the  braves  returned ; 
but  presented  a  protest  setting  forth  Tammany's  exclusive 
claims  to  regularity  and  stating  that  in  view  of  the  crisis 
threatening  the  Democratic  party  and  the  country,  Tam 
many  would  retain  seats  in  the  convention  and  would  sup 
port  its  nominees,  but  would  cast  no  vote  therein.2 

William  Kelly  was  nominated  for  governor  by  acclama 
tion,  and  the  rest  of  the  state  ticket  was  disposed  of  quickly.8 
Kelly  had  retired  from  business  in  New  York  City  in  the 
forties  and  since  then  had  devoted  himself  to  farming  in 
Dutchess  County,  where  he  had  a  model  establishment.  Be 
sides  having  sat  in  the  state  senate,  he  had  been  president  of 
the  State  Agricultural  Society,  trustee  of  the  State  Agri 
cultural  College,  and  interested  in  various  charitable,  edu 
cational,  and  commercial  enterprises.4  Now  he  was  set  up 
as  the  "  farmer's  candidate."  6  His  "  private  virtues  "  were 
recognized  by  the  chief  organ  of  his  opponents  in  the  heat 
of  the  campaign.6 

A  more  important  matter  was  that  of  presidential  elec 
tors.  A  committee  of  the  Bell-Everett  party  was  present 
to  arrange  a  fusion;  and  after  extended  negotiations, 
a  joint  ticket  was  formed  whereby  the  Bell-Everettites 
were  given  ten  of  the  nominations  for  electors.  The 

1  Herald,  Aug.  16.  2  Herald,  Aug.  16. 

3  William  F.  Allen  was  nominated  for  lieutenant-governor  and  Wil 
liam  C.  Rhodes  for  state  prison  inspector  by  acclamation;  William  W. 
Wright  was  named  for  canal  commissioner  (Herald,  Aug.  16) . 

*  Argus,  Oct.  i. 

5 The  Argus  urged  its  readers  to  "vote  for  Kelly,  the  Farmer's  Can 
didate." 

6  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct.  20. 


8o          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [28o 

resolutions  condemned  the  doctrines  of  the  Republicans 
and  of  the  Breckinridge  supporters  alike,  and  declared 
that  in  case  of  a  struggle  "we  will  stand  by  the  Union  against 
disunion."  The  Republican  administration  of  the  State  and 
the  proposed  constitutional  amendment  abolishing  the  prop 
erty  qualification  for  negro  voters  were  warmly  denounced. 
In  order  to  bring  about  cooperation  to  defeat  Lincoln,  the 
state  committee  was  authorized  to  fill  any  vacancy  that 
might  occur  on  the  electoral  or  state  tickets  and  to  take 
proper  measures  to  give  "  united  expression  and  effect  to  the 
national  conservative  sentiment  of  the  State."  x 

Immediately  after  the  convention,  a  controversy  arose 
among  the  adherents  of  the  new  allies.  Brooks  2  and  Hunt,3 
representing  the  Bell-Everettites,  declared  that  their  ten 
electors,  if  chosen,  would  be  free  to  vote  for  the  Constitu 
tional  Union  candidates.  On  the  other  hand,  Oswald  Otten- 
dorfer,  a  Douglas  nominee  for  elector  and  editor  of  the  New 
York  Staats  Zeitung,  asserted  that  the  distinct  understand 
ing  was  that  all  on  the  electoral  ticket  should  vote  for 
Douglas.4  Irish  Democratic  papers  claimed  the  same.5  The 
Tammany  Hall  General  Committee  ratified  the  Douglas 
nominees  "  in  full  faith  and  confidence  that  every  person 
whose  name  is  on  the  ticket  will,  if  elected,  vote  for  Stephen 
A.  Douglas."  c  The  Tribune  maliciously  asked,  "  What  do 
the  Bell-Everettites  say  to  this?"  7  and  it  aptly  labelled  the 
arrangement  "  the  confusion  ticket."  Meanwhile  the  ten 

1  Herald,  Aug.  15,  16,  17. 

a  Extract  from  the  New  York  Express  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  29. 
'Speech  of  Hunt  in  New  York  City,  Herald,  Aug.  29. 
*  Extract  from  Staats  Zeitung,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  22. 
aNew   York  Freeman's  Journal,  quoted  in  the   Tribune,  Aug.  24; 
New  York  Irish  American,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  27. 
6  Tribune,  Aug.  24.  7 Ibid. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  8 1 

Bell-Everett  candidates  remained  silent  as  to  their  inten 
tions.1 

A  partial  union  of  the  "  conservative  "  men  in  this  State 
had  now  been  effected,  but  the  Breckinridge  supporters  were 
not  so  easily  fused.  Though  both  of  the  Democratic  state 
conventions  had  left  a  way  open  for  a  coalition,  though  both 
of  the  Democratic  gubernatorial  candidates  in  their  letters 
of  acceptance  had  intimated  their  willingness  to  withdraw,2 
yet  the  two  factions  came  to  an  agreement  on  the  electors 
after  the  hard  work  of  the  campaign  should  already  have 
been  begun,  and  then  only  after  much  negotiation  and 
recrimination,  many  delays  and  cautious  advances.  The 
strongest  pressure  against  continuing  the  division  came  from 
New  York  City,3  whose  public  opinion  finally  forced  an  un 
willing  union.  Yet  even  in  the  metropolis  there  continued 
to  be  opposition  to  such  a  step.4  Moreover,  the  attitude  of 
the  Breckinridge  State  Committee  was  especially  hostile  to 
fusion,  and  at  a  meeting  soon  after  the  Douglas  State  Con 
vention,  the  committee  refused  to  make  any  advance.5  The 
Douglas  State  Committee  at  the  end  of  August  took  the  in 
itiative  by  appointing  a  conference  committee  consisting  of 
Benjamin  Wood  and  two  others.6  Soon  after,  a  number  of 
prominent  adherents  of  Breckinridge  visited  Washington 
to  consult,  it  was  reported,  with  General  Lane  and  with  the 

1  New  York  Evening  Post,  Aug.  28. 

'Letter  of  acceptance  of  Brady  (Herald,  Aug.  30);  letter  of  accept 
ance  of  Kelly  (Herald,  Sept.  u). 

s Herald,  Sept.  11;  New  York  World  (then  independent),  Sept.  4. 

*  Editorial  from  a  Douglas  organ,  the  Sunday  Mercury,  printed  in 
the  Tribune,  Sept.  10;  extract  from  the  Staats  Zeitung,  printed  in  the 
Tribune,  Sept.  18. 

5 Herald,  Aug.  22;  confirmed  by  the  Argus,  Sept.  12. 

6  Herald,  Aug.  31;  Argus,  Sept.  i. 


82          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [282 

administration  in  regard  to  fusion.1     Evidently  the  decision 
was  favorable  to  a  coalition  on  satisfactory  terms. 

Immediately  following  the  return  of  the  Breckinridge  men, 
their  state  committee  met  at  the  Astor  House  in  New  York 
City,  while  the  conferees  appointed  by  the  Douglas  State 
Committee  met  at  the  Metropolitan.     The  Douglas  men  re 
quested  a  conference,  to  which  the  Breckinridgers  acceded, 
appointing  for  this  purpose  a  sub-committee  of  three  headed 
by  John  A.  Green.     In  conference,  the  two  sub-committees 
haggled  in  vain,  the  Breckinridge  men  finally  demanding 
ten  electors  and  two  places   on  the  state  ticket,  and  the 
Douglas  men  offering  five  electors  and  two  state  nomina 
tions  or  six  electors  and  one  place  on  the  state  ticket.    Then 
the  Breckinridge  State  Committee  adjourned  after  authoriz 
ing  its  chairman  to  arrange  a  fusion  upon  the  rejected 
terms.     Wood,  finding  that  the  other  side  was  obdurate, 
notified  Green  that  the  proposition  of  the  Breckinridge  State 
Committee  would  be  favorably  reported   to  the  Douglas 
State    Committee.2      The    Breckinridge    State    Committee, 
however,   had  meanwhile  departed,   and   Green  purposely 
avoided— so  the  press  reports  said— receiving  the  message 
of  Wood.3    Before  adjourning,  the  Breckinridge  men  issued 
an  address  putting  the  blame  for  the  failure  to  agree  on  the 
Douglas  conferees,   and  concluding:    "We  ask  the  more 
than  one  hundred  thousand  old  adamantine  hard-shell  na 
tional  democrats  of  this  State,  will  you  desert  your  party 
now,  to  follow   Richmond  and  Cagger,   and  their  Know 

1  Herald,  Sept.  6;  address  of  the  Breckinridge  State  Committee, 
printed  in  the  Herald,  Sept.  17. 

*  Herald,  Sept.  8,  n;  Wood's  report  to  the  Douglas  State  Committee 
printed  in 'the  Herald,  Sept.  15;  Address  of  the  Breckinridge  State 
Committee  printed  in  the  Herald,  Sept.  17. 

5  Argus,  Sept.  12;  also  quotations  therein  from  the  New  York  News 
and  the  New  York  Day  Book. 


283]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  83 

Nothing  allies,  on  the  road  towards  the  free  soil  republican 
camp?  "  *  The  Regency  organ,  on  the  other  hand,  claimed 
that  the  Breckinridge  committee  was  insincere  and  that  it 
desired  to  prevent  fusion  by  "  insisting  upon  impossible 
terms,  by  irritating  language,  and  by  the  interposition  of  all 
possible  obstacles  and  stratagems."  2 

The  Douglas  men  could  not  afford  to  incur  the  odium  of 
throwing  New  York's  vote  to  Lincoln,  they  were  anxious 
to  save  the  local,  state,  and  congressional  tickets,  and  a  part 
of  the  commercial  and  financial  class  of  New  York  City — 
an  important  source  of  campaign  contributions — was 
strongly  in  favor  of  fusion.3  On  the  other  hand,  Richmond 
probably  did  not  care  to  strengthen  the  new  machine  oper 
ated  by  Green.  The  objects  of  the  Regency  would  be  at 
tained  if  the  majority  of  the  Breckinridge  followers  should 
be  won  over  by  some  mode  other  than  making  an  arrange 
ment  with  the  Green  committee.  When  the  Douglas  State 
Committee  met  in  mid-September,  a  resolution  acceding  to 
the  Breckinridge  proposal  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  seven 
to  five,  the  nays  including  Richmond  and  Cagger.4  A  dele 
gation  from  the  Volunteer  Democratic  Association,  a  body 
of  New  York  merchants  who  were  supposed  "  to  furnish  the 
sinews  of  war,  and  take  their  pay  in  Southern  trade,"  5  ap 
peared  before  the  committee  and  urged  that  to  effect  a  united 
front,  ten  Breckinridge  men  should  be  placed  upon  the 
electoral  ticket  and  two  upon  the  state  ticket.0  While  this 
request  was  refused,  the  committee  before  adjourning  gave 

1  Address  of  the  Breckinridge  State  Committee  printed  in  the  Herald, 
Sept. 17. 

2  Argus,  Sept.  12.  *  Herald,  Sept.  15. 
4 Herald,  Sept.  15;  Argus,  Sept.  18. 

6  Tribune,  Sept.  15. 

6  Argus,  Sept.  18,  containing  reply  of  Peter  Cagger,  Secretary  to 
John  T.  Henry,  Chairman. 


84          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [284 

full  power  in  the  whole  matter  to  a  sub-committee  con 
sisting  of  Richmond,  Cagger,  and  one  other.1  These  three, 
after  consultation  with  some  merchants  and  New  York 
City  supporters  of  Breckinridge,  adopted  a  plan  which  satis 
fied  Richmond's  conflicting  aims.2  The  mercantile  and 
moneyed  interests  and  the  Breckinridge  vote  in  the  metro 
politan  district,  where  alone  in  the  State,  Breckinridge  had 
any  important  strength,  were  appeased,  without,  however, 
any  recognition  of  the  Green  organization. 

At  a  monster  meeting  of  those  opposed  to  the  Republican 
party  and  its  principles,  held  in  New  York  City  on  Sep 
tember  1 7th,  and  presided  over  by  Joshua  J.  Henry,  a  mer 
chant  in  the  Southern  dry-goods  trade  and  the  leading  spirit 
in  the  Volunteer  Democratic  Association,  a  resolution  was 
adopted  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  fifteen  which 
should  form  a  fusion  electoral  ticket.3  This  committee  in 
cluded  Charles  O'Conor,  Edwin  Croswell,  Samuel  J.  Tilden, 
and  Peter  B.  Sweeney.4  The  fifteen,  unable  to  satisfy  the 
conflicting  demands  of  Green  and  Richmond,  finally  decided 
upon  a  settlement  of  its  own,  by  which  four  of  the  names  on 
the  Breckinridge  ticket,  including  Henry  S.  Randall  for 
elector-at-large,  and  three  other  Breckinridge  men  from  New 
York  City  were  substituted  for  seven  on  the  Douglas  list.8 
The  committee  made  no  attempt  to  arrange  a  fusion  on  the 
state  ticket,  regarding  that  as  beyond  its  powers.  It  recom 
mended,  however,  that  a  concession  be  made  to  the  sup 
porters  of  Breckinridge  by  the  nomination  of  one  of  their 
number  for  lieutenant-governor.6  The  electoral  ticket  thus 

1  Herald,  Sept.  15;  Argus,  Sept.  18.  *  Herald,  Sept.  17. 

3  Herald,  Sept.  18.  'Herald,  Sept.  20. 

5  Herald,  Sept.  25,  including  the  official  report  of  the  committee  of 
fifteen. 

'  Argus,  Oct.  9,  quoting  the  New  York  Journal  of  Commerce. 


285]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  85 

proposed  consisted  of  eighteen  Douglas,  ten  Bell,  and  seven 
Breckinridge  adherents.  Letters  were  then  sent  to  Richmond 
and  Green  requesting  their  ratification  of  the  arrangement.1 
Richmond's  committee  agreed  to  this,  substituting  in  place 
of  nominees  who  conveniently  stepped  aside  all  the  pro 
posed  names  except  that  of  Henry  S.  Randall,  who  had  al 
ready  denounced  the  negotiations  for  fusion.2  Another 
Breckinridge  man,  Greene  C.  Bronson,  corporation  counsel 
of  New  York  City  and  a  former  chief  judge  of  the  Court 
of  Appeals,  was  inserted  in  Randall's  stead.3  William  C. 
Crain,  ex-speaker  of  the  assembly  and  a  supporter  of  Breck 
inridge,  was  named  by  the  committee  for  lieutenant-gov 
ernor  upon  the  declination  of  Judge  Allen.4  The  State 
Executive  Committee  of  the  Constitutional  Union  party  also 
accepted  the  arrangement.5  At  another  great  meeting  in 
New  York  City  on  October  8th,  the  committee  of  fifteen 
ticket  as  amended  by  Dean  Richmond's  committee  was  en 
thusiastically  adopted.6  On  the  following  day  the  candi 
dates  for  elector  on  the  Breckinridge  ticket  met  at  the  call  of 
John  A.  Green,  and  declined  the  nominations  on  that  ticket. 
Green's  state  committee  then  convened  and  accepted  the 
declinations,  at  the  same  time  issuing  an  address  to  the 
national  Democrats  of  New  York,  declaring  that  neither 
their  principles  nor  their  organization  were  abandoned,  but 
that  the  fusion  ticket  was  accepted  as  the  best  chance  of 
electing  Breckinridge.  They  further  said  that  they  would 
keep  their  state  ticket  in  the  field ;  and,  after  denouncing  the 

1  Herald,  Sept.  26. 

*  See  letter  of  Randall,  quoted  infra. 

3  Resolutions  of  the  Douglas  State  Committee,  printed  in  the  Argus, 
Oct.  4. 

4  Resolutions  of  the  Douglas  State  Committee,  Argus,  Oct.  4. 

5  Herald,  Oct.  6.  «  Herald,  Oct.  9. 


86          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [286 

New  York  Central  Railroad  and  the  Albany  Regency,  the 
address  concluded  with  the  fling,  "  Nor  does  the  repute  of 
their  new  allies,  the  Know  Nothing  leaders,  elevate  the 
character  of  the  alliance."  At  the  same  time,  the  friends  of 
Breckinridge  were  advised  to  perfect  their  local  organization 
and  to  place  in  nomination  candidates  for  local  offices.1 

Thus  it  was  the  middle  of  October  before  this  partial 
fusion  was  effected.  Pennsylvania  had  by  that  time  gone 
Republican  in  its  state  election,  and  the  sole  hope  for  Lin 
coln's  opponents  was  now  New  York.  Yet  the  Breckinridge 
committee  acceded  to  the  coalition  with  recriminations  and 
reproaches  for  their  new  allies.  Since  Douglas  had  no 
chance  of  election  by  the  House,  a  union  on  the  state  ticket 
was  the  kind  of  fusion  which  alone  would  have  been  of  value 
to  the  Richmond  organization ;  but  the  Breckinridge  men  re 
fused  to  withdraw  Brady  and  his  associates.  The  mutual 
bickerings,  prolonged  for  so  long  a  time,  could  not  but 
weaken  the  prospects  of  the  Democrats.2 

The  Republicans,  on  the  other  hand,  although  for  a  while 
slightly  distracted  by  an  intermittent  warfare  between 
Greeley  and  his  enemies,3  were  nevertheless  quite  harmon 
ious  compared  to  their  opponents.  It  is  true  that  just  before 
the  Republican  State  Convention  at  Syracuse  in  the  latter 
part  of  August,  Greeley  had  made  in  the  Tribune  an  on 
slaught  on  Weed,  connecting  him  with  the  corruption  of  the 

1  Herald,  Oct.  10. 

'August  Belmont  in  a  letter  to  John  Forsyth,  written  shortly  after 
the  election,  described  this  as  one  the  chief  causes  of  the  defeat  of  the 
fusion  ticket  (Belmont's  Letters,  Speeches  and  Addresses,  p.  37). 

5  Even  after  the  convention,  Greeley  and  Weed  kept  denouncing  each 
other  (e.  g.,  Tribune,  Aug.  28).  Greeley  personally  interfered  against 
the  reelection  of  Speaker  Littlejohn,  charging  him  with  corruption, 
while  Raymond  entered  the  lists  in  behalf  of  the  Speaker  (Tribune, 
Oct.  23;  Herald,  Oct.  25).  Later,  Littlejohn  sued  Greeley  for  libel 
(Herald,  Dec.  6). 


287]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  87 

Legislature  of  1860.  Greeley  was  not  alone  in  his  desire  to 
cleanse  the  party  from  any  taint  which  might  have  arisen 
from  the  doings  at  Albany,  many  Republicans  openly  re 
pudiating  the  acts  of  their  representatives  at  the  past  ses 
sion.1  The  matter  seemed  likely  to  be  the  subject  of  a 
struggle  in  the  convention  between  Weed's  supporters  and 
his  adversaries.2  Dana  and  Field  were  active  among  the 
latter,  but  the  anti-Weed  men  were  in  the  minority.  In  the 
end,  the  convention  proceeded  with  its  work  harmoniously. 
A  resolution  drafted  by  Field  was  toned  down  so  as  to  de 
nounce  merely  the  attempt  to  fasten  upon  the  Republican 
party  the  odium  of  profligate  legislation,  declaring  that  the 
jobs  lately  put  through  at  Albany  could  not  have  been  passed 
without  the  almost  unanimous  support  of  the  Democratic 
members,  and  condemning  official  corruption  generally. 
Besides  the  ratification  of  the  Chicago  nominations  and  plat 
form,  and  the  usual  praise  of  the  Republican  state  adminis 
tration  and  of  the  Republican  canal  policy,  a  plank  was 
adopted  declaring  that  the  people  should  watch  the  use  made 
of  franchises  to  corporate  bodies  and  enforce  necessary  re 
strictions  upon  them.3 

Headed  by  Edwin  D.  Morgan  and  Robert  Campbell,  both 
renominated  by  acclamation  though  Campbell's  name  was 
probably  a  bitter  pill  for  Weed,4  the  slate  went  through 

1  Report  of  a  meeting  of  the  Republican  editors  from  the  interior  of 
the  State  (Herald,  Aug.  23);  letter  to  Governor  Morgan,  thanking  him 
for  using  his  veto  against  "  the  dangerous  schemes  of  the  late  Legisla 
ture,"  signed  by  a  number  of  well-known  Republicans  (Tribune ,  May 
9) ;  resolutions  of  the  Brooklyn  Rocky  Mountain  Club  (Herald,  April 
27) ;  resolution  of  the  Brooklyn  Seventh  Ward  Republican  Association 
(Tribune,  Aug.  17). 

1  Herald,  Aug.  22.  '  Herald,  Aug.  23. 

*  Ante,  chapter  i,  confirmed  by  many  statements  scattered  in  the 
press,  e.g.,  Herald,  Aug.  23;  Tribune,  Aug.  25.  When  E.  Delafield 
Smith  moved  the  unanimous  nomination  of  E.  D.  Morgan  for  gover- 


88          NEW  yORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [288 

smoothly.  The  nominations  for  electors  were  divided  among 
the  various  elements  of  which  the  party  was  composed,, 
William  Cullen  Bryant  who  was  of  radical  Democratic  ante 
cedents  and  James  O.  Putnam  a  prominent  former  Ameri 
can  being  selected  for  electors-at-large.1  The  results  of  the 
convention  apparently  showed  that,  despite  his  defeat  at 
Chicago,  Weed  still  had  some  degree  of  control  over  the 
party  in  this  State. 

It  is  very  probable  that  New  York,  despite  the  formation 
of  what  the  Tribune  labeled  the  "  hybrid,  tesselated,  three- 
legged  anti-Republican  ticket,"  2  was  safe  for  Lincoln  from 
the  beginning  of  the  contest.  Yet,  that  the  campaign  in  this 
State  after  the  fusion  had  been  accomplished  was  a  hard 
fought  one  was  .later  attested  by  Greeley,  who  spoke  of  it  as 
"  a  struggle  as  intense,  as  vehement,  and  energetic,  as  had 
ever  been  known."  3  The  Democrats  put  some  hope  in  this 
.  desperate  chance  when  no  other  was  left.  It  is  true  that  in 
1856,  the  Republicans  had  been  aided  by  a  peculiar  enthu 
siasm  for  the  candidate,  by  the  new-born  zeal  for  a  great, 
cause,  by  the  climax  of  the  Kansas  struggle,  and  by  activity 
in  the  pulpit  and  the  religious  press — all  of  which  were 
largely  or  wholly  absent  in  1860.  In  September  of  the  latter 
year,  the  Republican  press  of  New  York  showed  signs  of 
alarm.  It  was  asserted  that  the  party  was  overconfident  and 

nor,  James  S.  Wadsworth  moved  to  amend  by  nominating  at  the  same 
time  and  by  the  same  vote  Robert  Campbell  for  lieutenant-governor. 
As  Wadsworth  was  an  anti-Weed  man,  this  looks  like  a  clever  move  on 
the  part  of  Weed's  adversaries.  After  the  convention,  however.  Weed 
denied  his  hostility  to  Campbell,  and  declared,  "  We  went  to  Syracuse 
anticipating  and  prepared  for  the  renomination  of  our  present  Governor 
and  Lieutenant-Governor"  (Albany  Evening  Journal,  Aug.  27). 

^Herald,  Aug.  23. 

*  Tribune,  July  11.  Of  course,  at  that  date,  the  formation  of  such  a 
ticket  was  not  accomplished  but  merely  anticipated. 

3  Greeley 's  American  Conflict,  i,  p.  326. 


289]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  89 

sunk  in  lethargy.    After  the  middle  of  September,  however, 
the  outlook  for  the  Republicans  in  this  State  brightened; 
and  with  the  October  elections,  the  weakness  of  the  anti-  , 
Lincoln  ticket  became  daily  more  apparent. 

The  fusion  itself  proved  a  source  of  weakness  to  the  allies. 
The  Republicans  not  only  assailed  and  ridiculed  such  an  in 
congruous  coalition,  but  also  took  good  care  to  remind  na 
turalized  Irish  and  German  as  well  as  Roman  Catholic  citi 
zens,  of  the  former  Know  Nothing  activities  of  some  of  the 
fusion  electoral  candidates.1  Then  too,  the  Republicans 
were  inspired  with  new  vigor  by  the  union  of  their  oppo 
nents.  From  up  the  State  came  reports  of  hostility  and 
disgust  on  the  part  of  both  factions  of  the  Democracy 
toward  the  ticket,  and  it  seems  probable  that  many  Demo 
cratic  votes  were  for  that  reason  cast  for  Lincoln.2  In 
the  middle  of  October,  the  New  York  Herald,  an  ardent 
advocate  of  a  combination  of  the  anti-Lincoln  forces,  as 
serted  that  there  was  no  genuine  fusion  between  the  two 
Democratic  wings  and  that  the  breach  between  them  had 
widened  since  the  October  elections.3  Dickinson,  as  late 
as  October  i8th,  having  come  around  so  far  that  he  appealed 
for  support  of  the  fusion  ticket,  did  so  on  the  ground  that  its 
success  might  make  possible  the  choice  of  Breckinridge  and 
that  no  other  candidate  could  expect  to  be  helped  by  it.4 

1 E.  g.,  Raymond's  speech  at  Brooklyn  (Albany  Evening  Journal, 
Oct.  10);  various  editorials  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  during  Sep 
tember  and  October. 

*  Herald,  Oct.  30,  Nov.  i;  Brooklyn  Eagle  (Dem.),  quoted  in  the 
Tribune,  Nov.  10;  letter  written  by  one  whom  the  Argus  described  as 
a  "  gentleman  of  long  and  honorable  service  in  the  party,"  saying, 
''In  my  judgment  this  coalition  cost  us  thousands  of  votes  in  this 
State"  (Argus,  Nov.  21). 

8  Herald,  Oct.  19. 

*  Letter  of  Dickinson  to  John  A.  Green  (Herald,  Oct.  22). 


90          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [290 

Brady  gave  utterance  to  the  same  sentiments.1  Henry  S. 
Randall  correctly  described  the  situation  when  he  wrote: 

Enthusiasm  won't  stay  at  a  red  heat  during  a  long  train  of 
protocols  and  conferences.  .  .  Our  columns  were  arrayed  for 
battle,  and  looked  to  see  the  signal.  Bah !  They  saw  a  little 
white  flag  crossing  and  recrossing  between  us  and  our  foes. 
And  this  has  been  kept  up  until  cowards  have  had  time  to 
look  for  the  strongest  side,  until  the  ardor  of  our  bravest  has 
been  chilled!  For  why  should  they  strike  gallantly  against 
those  who  may  to-morrow  be  allies,  and  who,  though  allies 
will  not  forget  the  present  blow  ? 2 

Besides  issues  which  were  common  to  the  whole  land, 
there  were  in  New  York  several  less  important  matters  re 
lating  more  especially  to  this  State  which  received  atten 
tion  during  the  campaign.  Democratic  speakers  and  news 
papers  3  assailed  the  corruption  of  the  last  legislature. 
"  While  public  attention  has  been  directed  to  remote  ob 
jects,"  said  Washington  Hunt, 

and  a  fictitious  alarm  excited  lest  slavery  should  invade  lati 
tudes  where  negroes  are  frozen  in  the  winter  months,  our 
people  have  been  too  neglectful  of  the  duties  of  self-govern 
ment.  .  .  .  Corruption  stalks  abroad.  ...  If  we  can  believe 
their  own  organs,  the  friends  of  freedom  have  introduced  the 
slave  trade  into  the  halls  of  our  Capitol.  Worst  of  all,  they 
have  been  selling  white  men  and  the  representatives  of  white 
men.  Legislation  bought  and  sold — bills  passed  or  defeated 

1  Herald,  Oct.  23. 

*  Letter  of  Randall,  printed  in  the  Tribune,  Oct.  3.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  Douglas  adherent  wrote:  "...  in  spite  of  ourselves,  in  spite 
of  the  better  sense  of  our  State  Central  Committee,  we  were  forced  into 
an  association  with  disunionists.  .  .  .  What  remained  of  the  enthusiasm 
which  had  existed  for  Judge  Douglas  and  his  principles,  was  crushed 
out,  ..."  (Letter  referred  to  in  note  2,  supra,  p.  89). 

*E.  g.t  Argus,  Sept.  13,  20,  24,  25,  27.  29,  Oct.  1,6,  12,  15,  Nov.  3. 


29I]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1860  91 

to  suit  the  highest  bidder — bribery  the  order  of  the  day — such 
is  the  hideous  picture  presented  to  the  people  of  our  noble 
State.1 

The  Republicans  could  only  put  forth  denunciations  of  all 
corruption  and  endeavor  to  shift  the  blame  upon  the  Demo 
crats  who  had  voted  for  the  obnoxious  acts.  Secondly,  the 
Republicans  were  charged  with  greatly  increasing  the  state 
taxes  for  canals  through  the  abandonment  of  the  Demo 
cratic  policy  of  pay  as  you  go  for  one  of  borrowing.  In  this 
connection,  the  Democrats  asked,  somewhat  inconsistently,2 
who  was  responsible  for  the  five  and  a  half  million  dollars 
tax  of  that  year.  "  Every  household  in  the  State,"  said  the 
Argus,  "  feels  the  oppression  of  the  reckless,  extravagant, 
and  profligate  policy  inaugurated  by  Seward  and  Ruggles,3 
which  has  fastened  upon  us  the  incubus  of  debt  and  taxa 
tion."  *  Thirdly,  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  state  con 
stitution,  abolishing  the  property  suffrage  qualification  for 
negroes,  was  denounced  by  the  Democrats.5 

The  great  mercantile  interests  of  New  York  City  were  for 
the  most  part  a  source  of  strength  to  the  anti-Lincoln  ticket. 
It  was  the  merchants  who  took  the  lead  in  effecting  the 
fusion.  Fernando  Wood  6  and  Yancey  of  Alabama 7  in 

1  Herald,  Aug.  29. 

'Inconsistently,  because  they  had  strenuously  opposed  measures  de 
signed  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  direct  taxation  for  this 
purpose. 

8  For  this,  see  Weed,  Autobiography,  pp.  458-9. 

*  Argus,  Oct.  19.  Other  similar  editorials,  Oct.  3,  5,  9  (where  it 
speaks  of  "Republican  profligacy"  and  "Republican  dishonesty  and 
grand  larceny"),  12,  22,  25.  The  Albany  Evening  Journal  (Oct.  22) 
in  reply  claimed  that  the  Republicans  had  not  control  over  the  canal 
administration  during  the  four  preceding  years,  and  hence  were  not  re 
sponsible  for  the  increased  taxation. 

*E.g.,  Argus,  Aug.  27,  Sept.  5,  7,  Oct.  i,  Nov.  i,  2. 

6 Herald,  Sept.  18.  ''Herald,  Oct.  n. 


92          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [292 

speeches  at  New  York  dwelt  upon  the  importance  from  the 
business  point  of  view  of  defeating  Lincoln.  The  New  York 
Herald  kept  emphasizing  the  same  argument,  and  held 
before  the  merchants  "  the  prospect  of  a  staggering  blow  to 
the  commercial  and  financial  interests  of  New  York,"  should 
Lincoln  be  successful.1  Immediately  before  the  election,  the 
same  paper  printed  a  series  of  special  appeals  to  the  various 
trades  having  much  at  stake  in  Southern  business.  To  the 
hotel  keepers,  it  said :  "  If  the  relations  between  North  and 
South  are  disturbed,  as  they  will  be  by  Lincoln's  election, 
your  houses  will  be  half  empty.  ..."  To  the  ship  car 
penters,  it  urged :  "  Don't  forget  that  if  Lincoln  is  not  de 
feated  at  the  polls  to-day  your  trade  is  gone  to  the  dogs  .  .  . 
no  more  ships  for  the  Southern  trade  will  be  built  here." 
Similar  arguments  were  addressed  to  the  builders,  milliners, 
shoemakers,  carriage  makers,  and  tailors.2  After  the  elec 
tion,  the  Tribune  spoke  of  the  "  very  general  enlistment  of 
the  Mercantile  and  Capitalist  classes  in  the  Fusion  cause 
by  shrieks  of  apprehension  that  the  Union  was  about  to  be 
dissolved  in  case  of  Lincoln's  election  "  as  a  "  salient  feature 
of  the  canvass,"  and  said  further:  "  Nothing  like  it  has  been 
seen  since  the  Bank  Controversy  of  1832-8;  and  even  that 
did  not  compare  in  the  intensity  and  unanimity  of  the  com 
mercial  furor  with  that  [of  1860]."  3  This,  however,  while 
mainly  true,  was  an  exaggeration.  The  Republicans  sought 
— and  with  some  success — to  win  over  the  business  commu 
nity  by  pointing  out  the  dangerous  consequences  to  those  en 
gaged  in  mercantile  pursuits,  if  the  election  were  thrown  into 
the  House,  involving  probably  excitement  and  political  un- 

1  Herald,  Sept.  24. 

1  Herald,  Nov.  6.     This  argument  was  not  confined  to  the  metropolis; 
the  Argus  (Nov.  i)  made  a  similar  appeal  to  the  workingmen  of  Albany. 
3  Tribune,  Nov.  8. 


293  J  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  I86°  93 

rest  far  worse  than  that  which  had  attended  the  election  of 
speaker  in  the  previous  year.1  This  argument  was  a  telling 
one.2 

Taking  the  State  as  a  whole,  the  Republicans  had  the 
advantage  in  better  organization,  more  enthusiasm,  more 
and  better  attended  meetings,  and  superior  talent  on  the  plat 
form.  Long  before  the  presidential  nominations  were  made, 
they  had  in  the  first  half  of  the  year  undertaken  a  campaign 
of  education  at  Cooper  Institute,  where  successive  meetings 
were  addressed  by  Frank  Blair,  Cassius  M.  Clay,  Abraham 
Lincoln,  and  John  Sherman.3  After  the  battle  proper  was 
joined,  other  eminent  men,  including  Carl  Schurz,  Senators 
Wade,  Sumner,  Hale,  Doolittle,  and  Wilson,  Galusha  A. 
Grow,  Thaddeus  Stevens,  Oliver  P.  Morton,  Owen  Love- 
joy,  and  Salmon  P.  Chase,  were  imported,  most  of  them 
speaking  a  number  of  times ;  while  of  New  Yorkers,  Seward, 
besides  going  West  to  stump  for  Lincoln,  spoke  six  times  for 
that  cause  within  this  State,  and  Greeley,  George  William 
Curtis,  William  Cullen  Bryant,  David  Dudley  Field,  Henry 
B.  Stanton,  Henry  J.  Raymond,  James  O.  Putnam,  and 

1  E.  g.,  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct.  22,  24,  Nov.  3. 

1  Herald,  Nov.  6:  letter  of  Seymour  to  Crittenden  (Chapman's  Life 
of  Crittenden,  ii,  pp.  254-5):  "Thousands  and  thousands  voted  for  the 
Lincoln  ticket  in  this  State,  who  had  no  partiality  for,  or  confidence  in 
republican  doctrines.  They,  however,  judged  that  success  of  the  Union 
ticket  here  would,  at  best,  throw  the  election  into  the  House  and  pos 
sibly  result,  after  bitter  animosity,  finally  in  the  selection  of  Mr.  Lane 
by  the  Senate.  From  their  point  of  observation  this  large  class  re 
garded  .  .  .  the  election  by  the  people  of  a  candidate  they  did  not  ap 
prove,  less  disastrous  than  a  long,  embittered,  congressional  contest." 
Similar  testimony  was  given  by  August  Belmont  in  a  letter  of  Novem 
ber  22,  1860,  to  John  Forsyth  (Belmont's  Letters,  etc.,  p.  37).  That  all 
the  big  merchants  and  capitalists  of  the  metropolis  were  not  for  the 
fusion  ticket  is  seen  from  the  Wall  Street  meeting  in  favor  of  Lincoln 
(Herald,  Nov.  6). 

3  Herald,  Jan.  26,  Feb.  16,  27,  April  14. 


94          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [294 

Daniel  Ullman  were  other  prominent  names  on  the  lists  of 
speakers.  The  Tribune  thought  that  two  thousand  would 
be  a  low  estimate  of  the  number  of  Republican  speeches  de 
livered  in  the  interior  of  the  State  during  a  single  week.1 

The  Democrats  had  nothing  to  compare  with  such  ac 
tivity.2  Hunt,  Brady,  Amasa  J.  Parker,  James  S.  Thayer, 
and  Fernando  Wood  were  among  their  speakers;  of  out 
siders,  Douglas  traversed  the  State  in  September,  attended 
a  monster  barbecue  at  Jones'  Wood  in  New  York  City,  and 
made  speeches  there  and  at  Troy,  Glens  Falls,  Albany,  El- 
mira,  Clifton  Springs,  Syracuse,  Rochester,  and  Buffalo, 
besides  briefer  addresses  at  various  way  stations.3  Her- 
schell  V.  Johnson  went  through  the  central  counties,  speak 
ing  at  nine  places;  William  L.  Yancey  addressed  several 
meetings;  General  Ewing,  ex-Governor  Brown,  and  Felix 
K.  Zollicoffer,  all  of  Tennessee,  stumped  the  State;  while 
among  those  who  spoke  here  at  least  once  were  Vallandig- 
ham,  Logan  and  Richardson  of  Illinois,  and  Foote  of  Mis 
sissippi. 

After  the  middle  of  October,  there  came  from  all  over 
New  York  reports  of  Democratic  apathy  and  of  Republican 
activity.4  The  Wide-Awakes  were  very  numerous  in  this 
State,  Wide-Awake  halls  and  wigwams  were  dedicated  at 
various  places,5  and  Wide-Awake  torchlight  processions 

1  Tribune,  Nov.  3. 

2  "They  [the  Republicans]  have  an  army  of  spouters  stumping  the 
State  in  every  direction  .  .  .  The  opposition  .  .  .  have  only  three  or 
four  stragglers  on  the  stump  ..."  (Albany  correspondence,  Herald, 
Oct.  20) ;  a  Herald  editorial  of  Oct.  22  gives  similar  testimony. 

3  Argus,  Sept.  17,  18,  20,  21. 

4  Herald,  Oct.  20,  25,  30,  Nov.  I,  3.     Of  course,  the  Argus  files  give 
the  opposite  impression;  but  as  the  Argus  was  so  plainly  partisan  and 
as  the  Herald  was  anti-Lincoln,  the  latter's  admissions  are  deemed  the 
better  evidence. 

6 In  New  York  City,  Tribune,  Aug.  9;  Herald,  Sept.  n;  in  Brooklyn, 


295]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  I86°  95 

formed  a  noteworthy  feature  of  the  campaign  here  as  else 
where.  An  article  in  the  anti-Lincoln  New  York  Herald 
declared  that  "  the  character  and  standing  of  many  mem 
bers  of  our  community  who  have  joined  in  this  movement, 
bearing  torches  as  privates  in  the  ranks,  give  it  a  weight 
and  importance  heretofore  unknown  to  any  political  order. 
Merchants,  lawyers,  doctors,  and  members  of  all  trades  and 
professions  seem  to  have  caught  the  infection.  .  .  ."  *  On 
the  other  hand,  there  were  Democratic  uniformed  organiza 
tions  formed  throughout  the  State,  known  usually  as  "Little 
Giant  "  clubs.  They,  too,  were  equipped  with  cap,  cape,  and 
torch,  had  the  same  functions  as  the  Wide-Awakes,  and  at 
tained  some  of  the  latter's  discipline  and  enthusiasm.2  There 
were  also  Douglas  and  Johnson  clubs  and  Bell-Everett  uni 
formed  organizations  called  Union  Sentinels  and  Minute 
Men.  According  to  the  New  York  Herald,  however,  none 
of  these  were  comparable  to  the  Wide-Awakes  in  drill, 
appearance,  or  numbers.3 

Moreover,  the  Republicans  had  confidence,  whereas  the 
Democrats  were  dejected  by  their  poor  prospects  4  and  later 
by  their  disastrous  defeat  in  the  October  elections.5  An 
other  handicap  to  the  Democrats  was  their  rival  local  and 

Tribune,  Aug.  n,  Sept.  25;  in  Jamaica,  Tribune ',  June  28;  at  Catskill, 
Tribune,  Sept.  u;  at  Owego,  Tribune,  July  16;  at  Lockport,  Tribune, 
July  23;  at  Brushville,  Tribune,  July  26;  at  Haverstraw,  Tribune,  July 
26;  at  Troy,  Tribune,  July  27;  at  Syracuse,  Tribune,  Aug.  n. 

*  Her  aid,  Sept.  19. 

2  Many  instances  of  uniformed  clubs  of  ''  Little  Giants"  are  referred 
to  in  the  files  of  the  Argus.  A  description  of  the  Albany  regiment  of 
such  clubs  is  given  in  the  Argus  of  Aug.  4.  In  some  places,  Giants' 
castles,  corresponding  to  the  Wide-Awake  wigwams,  were  erected. 

3 Herald,  Sept.  29. 

4  The  Argus  kept  urging  upon  its  readers  that  New  York  could  be 
carried,  if  proper  efforts  were  made. 
6Belmont's  Letters,  p.  37. 


96          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [296 

congressional  tickets  in  some  parts  of  the  State.  Of  course, 
New  York  City  had  the  most  confused  field.1  Speaking  of 
the  numerous  candidates  there,  a  newspaper  article  said: 
'  To  a  stranger  this  indiscriminate  nomination  presents  very 
much  the  appearance  of  a  general  training  day  amongst  the 
militia,  in  which  the  officers  are  very  far  in  excess  of  the 
main  body  of  the  army ;  it  is,  however,  one  of  the  peculiari 
ties  of  political  life  in  New  York  in  1860." 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  how  the  former  American 
vote  divided.  There  are  indications,  though,  aside  from  the 
results  of  the  election,  that  the  greater  part  of  those  who 
supported  Fillmore  in  1856  voted  for  Lincoln  in  i86o.3 
Among  the  prominent  former  Americans  of  New  York  who 
came  out  for  Lincoln  were  Daniel  Ullman  and  G.  A. 
Scroggs,  respectively  candidates  for  governor  and  lieutenant- 
govenor  in  1854;  E.  R.  Jewett,  chief  manager  of  the  Fill- 
more  campaign ;  H.  D.  Northrup,  once  president  of  the 
American  State  Council;  James  O.  Putnam,  late  state  sen 
ator,  and  Amos  H.  Prescott,  the  latest  president  of  the 
N  American  State  Council.4 

Near  the  close  of  the  campaign,  an  attempt  to  frighten 
voters  from  supporting  Lincoln  was  made  by  stirring  up  a 
financial  panic.  The  Herald — the  paper  which  then  had  the 
largest  circulation  within  the  metropolis — said :  "  The  pre 
monitory  symptoms  of  a  financial  revulsion  are  upon  us. 

1  List  of  candidates  in  New  York  City  and  County  (Herald,  Oct.  22). 

1  Herald,  Oct.  17. 

5  A  number  of  signed  notices  of  former  Americans  supporting  Lincoln 
appeared  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  e.  g.,  one  signed  by  412  men 
of  Rochester  (Sept.  8),  a  similar  letter  signed  by  125  Albany  electors 
(Sept.  10),  etc.  The  statement  in  the  text  is  confirmed  by  Rhodes' 
History  of  the  United  States,  ii,  p.  498. 

4  Tribune,  Aug.  9,  Oct.  3,  10,  16.  Prescott  apparently  changed  dur 
ing  the  campaign. 


297]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  I86°  97 

.  .  .  They  are  visible  everywhere.  .  .  .  Nor  can  we  com 
prehend  how  we  can  possibly  escape  a  general  financial  earth 
quake  in  the  event  of  Lincoln's  election."  *  This  was  fol 
lowed  by  similar  editorials  on  the  succeeding  days.2  It 
was  asserted  by  Republican  organs,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
a  combination  had  been  formed  by  capitalists  and  banks  to 
call  in  simultaneously  loans  and  thus,  helped  on  by  the  cry 
that  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  was  inevitable  in  case  of  Lin 
coln's  success,  create  a  panic;  also  that  Secretary  Cobb — 
who  about  that  time  was  in  New  York  City — had  declared 
that  disunion  was  certain  in  case  Lincoln  was  elected;  and 
lastly  that  Collector  Schell  had  said,  "  One  more  turn  of  the 
screw  will  fetch  'em."  3  Stocks  fell  heavily,  but  the  tide 
was  not  turned.  The  fusion  vote  in  New  York  City  was 
but  a  slight  increase  over  the  combined  Buchanan  and  Fill- 
more  vote;  while  Lincoln  had  15,000  more  there  than  Fre 
mont. 

Lincoln's  majority  in  the  State  was  over  50,000.  Mor 
gan  received  63,000  and  Campbell  68,000  more  votes  than 
the  candidates  on  the  Regency  ticket;  while  Brady  polled 
almost  20,000  votes.4  Of  twenty-seven  counties  lost  by  Fre 
mont,  only  ten  went  against  Lincoln,  and  every  one  of  these 
by  greatly  reduced  majorities.  In  Albany  County,  the  ma 
jority  against  the  Republicans  was  decreased  between  six 
and  seven  thousand,  in  Kings  almost  ten  thousand,  and  in 
New  York  almost  eighteen  thousand.  Queens  showed  a 
change  of  over  two  thousand  in  favor  of  the  Republicans, 

^Herald,  Oct.  30. 

2  The  Albany  Argus  also  contained  editorials  of  similar  character 
(Oct.  23,  24,  26,  29,  30). 

8  Tribune,  Oct.  26;  Courier  and  Enquirer,  quoted  in  the  Herald, 
Oct.  31;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct.  24,  26,  27,  29;  Rhodes'  His 
tory  of  the  United  States,  ii,  p.  500. 

*  Albany  Evening  Journal  Almanac  for  1861. 


98          NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [298 

Erie  almost  eight  thousand,  Rensselaer  nearly  four  thou 
sand,  and  Ulster  about  seven  thousand.  The  whole  State 
showed  a  Republican  gain  over  the  figures  for  1856  of 
almost  1 00,000.  * 

Nevertheless,  the  proposed  constitutional  amendment  re 
lating  to  negro  suffrage  was  defeated  by  over  140,000. 
Almost  140,000  voters,  or  over  twenty  per  cent  of  the  whole 
number,  failed  to  cast  a  ballot  for  or  against  the  amendment. 
In  Buffalo,  Syracuse,  and  Oswego,  it  was  lost,  while  New 
York  City  with  25,000  votes  for  Lincoln  gave  the  amend 
ment  but  i, 600.  Even  in  the  nineteen  counties  where  it  was 
carried,  the  majorities  were  greatly  below  those  for  the  Re 
publican  electoral  candidates.  As  the  vote  against  the 
amendment  exceeded  the  vote  for  the  fusion  electoral  ticket 
by  30,000,  many  supporters  of  Lincoln  must  have  cast  their 
ballots  against  an  extension  of  negro  suffrage.2 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Nov.  13. 

*  Argus,  Dec.  10,  12.  The  majority  against  the  amendment  showed 
but  a  slight  increase  over  the  majority  against  a  similar  proposed  amend 
ment  in  1846;  in  that  year,  but  nine  counties  were  carried  for  the  pro 
posal;  in  1860,  nineteen. 


CHAPTER  IV 

NEW  YORK  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

THE  advance  of  the  Southern  secession  movement  during 
November  and  December,  1860,  affected  New  York  politics 
in  several  important  directions.  The  appalling  difficulties 
which  stared  the  nation  in  the  face  with  no  visible  way  of 
avoiding  them  called  for  the  highest  statesmanship,  which, 
with  the  exception  of  Lincoln's  prudent  course,  was  con 
spicuously  lacking  almost  everywhere.  And  so  it  was  in 
New  York.  Politicians  blundered  there  as  elsewhere. 
Most  colossal  of  all  the  errors  made  then  was  Greeley's 
famous  editorials  acknowledging  the  right  to  secede  as  a 
revolutionary  one  and  insisting  upon  letting  the  cotton  states 
go  in  peace  if  they  should  deliberately  resolve  to  leave  the 
Union.1  If  these  utterances  hurt  Greeley's  future  political 
career,  still  more  did  Thurlow  Weed's  editorials  in  the 
Albany  Evening  Journal  shake  his  leadership.  At  the  end 
of  November,  Weed  came  out  in  favor  of  such  a  fugitive 
slave  law  as  should  arm 

the  Federal  authorities  with  all  needful  power  for  its  execu 
tion,  together  with  a  provision  making  Counties  where  fugi 
tives  are  rescued  by  violence  .  .  .  liable  for  the  value  of  the 
slaves  so  rescued.  And  in  regard  to  the  other  vexed  question, 
viz :  the  right  of  going  into  the  Territories  with  slaves,  why 
not  restore  the  Missouri  Compromise  line? 

1  Tribune,  Nov.  9,  16,  Dec.  17.  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United 
States,  iii,  p.  140-1,  as  to  the  authorship  of  these  editorials. 

299]  99 


I0o        NEIV  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [300 

These  measures,  Weed  advocated  at  intervals  in  his 
paper  *  with  the  object  of  holding  the  border  states  in  the 
Union.  This  amazing  change  of  views  by  one  who  from 
youth  had  been  an  anti-slavery  man,2  who  had  bitterly  as 
sailed  the  fugitive  slave  law,3  and  who  had  nothing  to  gain 
from  such  a  reversal  but  much  to  lose,  was  probably  the 
result  of  an  ardently  patriotic  desire  to  avert  the  threatened 
calamity,  combined  with  a  long-standing  hatred  of  aboli 
tionists.4 

Weed  declared  that  in  urging  the  proposed  comprcn 
mise,  he  spoke  for  himself  alone,  and  the  Auburn  Advertiser 
asserted  that  Seward  disclaimed  newspaper  assumptions 
that  he  approved  the  plan  favored  by  the  Albany  Evening 
Journal.5  The  speeches  of  Seward  in  the  Senate  in  Janu 
ary,  however,  were  thought  by  many  to  accord  with  the 
policy  advocated  by  Weed.6  And,  indeed,  this  interpretation 
was  not  wrong,  perhaps,  inasmuch  as  Weed  began  what 
Seward  called  "  well  intentioned "  movements  after  long 
conferences  between  the  two,  and  moreover,  Seward  never 
directly  came  out  against  Weed's  views  on  this  matter.7 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Nov.  26,  30,  Dec.  14,  17;  Weed's  Auto 
biography,  pp.  603-4-5. 

*  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  pp.  188-9,  242- 
3  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  pp.  185,  242. 

*  See  Weed's  letter  to  Granger  in  1845,  Barnes '  Memoir  of  Weed,^>.2^Q. 
5  Quoted  by  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Dec.  19. 

6 The  Albany  Argus  so  interpreted  the  speeches  and  took  some  comfort 
from  them  (Argus,  Jan.  14).  Senator  Fessenden  considered  Seward's 
speech  of  January  3ist  "  an  abandonment  of  our  party  ground"  (Fes 
senden  '  s  Life  of  Fessenden ,  i,  pp.  121-2).  So  did  the  Tribune  (Feb.  4). 

7  Bancroft's  Seward,  ii,  pp.  26,  28.  Storey's  Sumner,  p.  190,  tells  of 
Weed  and  Seward  visiting  Sumner  during  January,  1861,  and  urging  ad 
justment.  Rhodes  'History  of  the  United  States ,  iii,  pp.  288-9,  however, 
remarks  that  "in  no  public  utterance  nor  private  letter  which  has  been 
printed  did  he  [Seward]  assert  that  he  would  sustain  it"  [the  Critten- 
den  compromise,  which  was  practically  what  Weed  advocated]. 


POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  ioi 

Seward  apparently  wished  the  proposition  to  be  made;  but 
he  desired  to  escape  the  responsibility,1  and  Weed  promised 
to  effect  that.2 

Weed's  plan  found  few  friends  in  his  party.  Though 
the  New  York  Times  and  the  New  York  Courier  and  En 
quirer  endorsed  his  suggested  compromise,3  it  created 
almost  a  revolt  in  the  Republican  ranks  of  New  York.* 
Senator  Preston  King  wrote  to  Weed :  "  It  cannot  be  done. 
You  must  abandon  your  position.  It  will  prove  distasteful 
to  the  majority  of  those  whom  you  have  hitherto  led."  8 
From  Albany,  George  E.  Baker  wrote  to  Sumner  that 
Weed's  proposals  were  approved  of  by  no  one  of  influence 
and  had  no  support  in  the  rural  districts.6  And  in  the 
middle  of  December,  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  itself  ac 
knowledged  that,  with  two  or  three  exceptions,  its  sugges 
tions  for  adjusting  the  controversy  which  threatened  the 
Union  had  been  utterly  rejected  by  the  Republican  press  of 
this  and  other  states.7  Yet  Weed  persisted  during  Decem 
ber  and  the  following  months  in  advocating  his  plan  of  com 
promise.  His  courage  on  this  occasion 8  may  well  be 
granted;  but  it  was  misguided  bravery,  a  poor  move  from 
the  standpoint  of  both  politician  and  statesman. 

On  the  Democratic  side,  however,  the  desire  for  conces 
sion  was  more  excusable.  The  united  feeling  of  the  party 
in  that  direction  found  its  most  prominent  exposition  at 
this  time  in  the  New  York  City  Pine  Street  meeting.  This 
1  Bancroft's  Seward,  ii,  p.  27.  *Ibid.,  p.  26,  footnote. 

3  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  ii,  p.  308. 

4  In  addition  to  the  evidence  given  in  the  text,  see  the  Herald,  Dec. 
14,  21 ;  Tribune,  Dec.  6,  7. 

5  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  209. 

6Pierce's  Memoir  and  Letters  of  Charles  Sumner,  iv,  p.  6,  footnote. 

7  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Dec.  17. 

8  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  335. 


102        NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [302 

demonstration  took  place  in  the  middle  of  December.  Al 
though  Mr.  Richard  Lathers,  the  prime  mover  in  the  af 
fair,1  declared  that  the  meeting  was  one  of  "national  men, 
irrespective  of  party,"  the  lists  of  those  who  signed  the  call z 
and  of  the  one  hundred  and  eighty  to  whom  invitations  were 
sent 3  show  only  Democrats  with  a  sprinkling  of  Bell- 
Everett  men  taking  part.  Of  the  speakers,  Charles  O'Conor, 
John  A.  Dix,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  and  John  McKeon  were 
Democrats,  while  Hiram  Ketchum  had  supported  Bell.  The 
resolutions 4  favored  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves,  the 
repeal  of  personal  liberty  laws,  and  the  maintenance  of  the 
rights  of  the  South  in  the  territories ;  the  people  of  a  terri 
tory  alone  should  decide  the  question  of  slavery  therein 
when  they  framed  a  constitution  for  admission  as  a  state; 
while  deploring  the  excitement  in  the  South,  the  resolutions 
did  "  not  hesitate  to  say  that  there  is  just  ground  for  it;  " 
and  finally,  they  entreated  the  South  to  abstain  from  hasty 
action.  Millard  Fillmore,  Greene  C.  Bronson,  and  Richard 
Lathers  were  appointed  to  proceed  to  the  South  with  the 
address  and  resolutions  adopted.5  Though  Lathers  pre 
sented  these  to  various  Southern  officials,  nothing  came  of 
this  effort  to  avert  disunion. 

Upon  the  meeting  of  the  Legislature  in  January,  1861, 
the  Weed  and  Greeley  forces  joined  battle  in  the  choice  of  a 
nominee  for  the  speakership.  The  speaker  of  the  previous 
assembly,6  Dewitt  C.  Littlejohn,  a  lieutenant  of  Weed,  was 

1  Tribune,  Dec.  17;  Sanborn1 's  Reminiscences  of  Richard  Lathers ,  p. 91. 

'Printed  in  the  Herald,  Dec.  15. 

'Printed  in  the  Herald,  Dec.  16.  I  have  not  been  able  to  recognize 
a  single  Republican  of  any  prominence  in  this  list;  thirty-three  were 
well  known  Democrats  and  a  smaller  number  Bell-Everett  men. 

4  Herald,  Dec.  16. 

5 Herald,  Dec.  16;  Sanborn 's  Reminiscences  of  Richard  Lathers, 
p.  112;  Dix's  Memoirs  of  John  A.  Dix,  i,  pp.  347-8-9. 

'And  also  of  the  Assemblies  of  1855,  '57,  and  '59. 


POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  103 

a  candidate  for  reelection.  Little  John  was  accused  of  hav 
ing  been  connected  with  the  passage  of  the  railroad  acts 
generally  stigmatized  as  corrupt,  which  had  gained  for  the 
previous  legislature  its  bad  name.1  The  Greeley  faction 
backed  Lucius  Robinson  of  Chemung  County,  a  man  who 
had  already  served  creditably  in  the  legislature  and  who 
later  rose  to  be  governor  of  the  State.  Greeley,  David  Dud 
ley  Field,  and  George  Opdyke  went  up  to  Albany  to  work 
for  Robinson.  Weed,  with  a  large  number  of  politicians, 
was,  of  course,  on  the  ground.2  The  contest  was  purely 
factional  and  personal;  for  Robinson  was,  as  later  events 
proved,  in  accord  with  Weed  upon  the  great  question  of  the 
hour.  When  the  caucus  met,  the  opposing  sides  were  found 
to  be  quite  evenly  balanced.  Upon  the  first  ballot,  Robinson 
'had  42  votes,  Littlejohn  38,  Henry  A.  Prendergast  4,  and 
Anson  Bingham  3.  On  the  next  three  ballots,  Robinson 
continued  to  lead,  though  with  decreasing  strength;  while 
on  the  fifth  trial,  Littlejohn  had  38  votes  to  Robinson's  37. 
It  was  evident  that  the  supporters  of  Prendergast  and  Bing 
ham  held  the  balance.  Accordingly,  Robinson  withdrew 
his  name  and  nominated  Bingham.  This  was  a  false  move, 
for  Bingham  declined.  The  anti-Weed  men  found  them 
selves  in  an  embarrassing  position,  being  without  a  candi 
date,  and  so  renominated  Robinson.  On  the  next  ballot, 
however,  Littlejohn  was  successful  in  obtaining  a  majority.3 
Whether  this  was  because  the  followers  of  the  minor  candi 
dates  became  convinced  that  there  was  no  chance  of  the  prize 
falling  to  a  third  man,  or  whether,  as  Greeley  declared,4  the 
result  was  brought  about  "  by  the  influences  usually  para- 

1  Argus,  Jan.  7.  *  Herald,  Jan.  i. 

*  Argus,  Jan.  i;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  i;  Tribune,  Jan.  i; 
Herald,  Jan.  i;  Utica  Telegraph  purporting  to  give  an  "  inside  view  " 
of  the  caucus  occurrences  (quoted  in  the  Argus,  Jan.  7). 

4  Tribune  (dispatch  signed  "H.  G."),  Jan.  i, 


104       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [304 

mount  here,"  cannot  be  said.  Francis  Kernan  of  Oneida 
was  chosen  as  the  Democratic  candidate.  In  the  Assem 
bly,  Little  John  received  90  votes,  Kernan  3I.1  This  contest 
for  the  speakership  was  significant  because  it  showed  the 
strength  of  the  opposition  to  Weed. 

The  new  legislature  consisted  of  23  Republicans  and  9 
Democrats  in  the  Senate,  and  93  Republicans  and  35  Demo 
crats  in  the  Assembly.2  The  Republican  majority  was  not 
only  divided  into  Weed  and  anti-Weed  factions,  but  it  was 
not  in  accord  on  policy.  As  for  the  latter  difference,  Weed 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  disturbing  cause.  Governor 
Morgan,  though  he  belonged  to  the  Weed-Seward  wing 
of  the  party,  came  out  strongly  in  his  annual  message 
against  the  proposed  compromise.  Despite  a  generally  mod 
erate  tone  and  some  conciliatory  sentiments,  such  as  a 
recommendation  that  the  law  of  1840  giving  fugitives  a  jury 
trial  be  repealed,  and  a  suggestion  that  other  states  having 
personal  liberty  laws  be  invited  to  repeal  them,  the  message 
displayed  upon  the  main  question  the  same  firm  attitude  that 
was  held  by  the  mass  of  the  party  throughout  the  country. 
After  declaring  that  to  permit  or  acquiesce  in  a  treasonable 
conspiracy  against  the  national  authorities  was  to  confess 
the  absolute  failure  of  our  polity,  and  that  the  people  of  New 
York  would  support  the  federal  authorities  in  the  enforce 
ment  of  the  laws — thus  indirectly  endorsing  coercion — the 
Governor  went  on  with  reference  to  the  proposed  compro 
mise  on  the  basis  of  the  Missouri  line :  "  .  .  .  this  State  does 
not  ask,  nor  does  she  desire  the  restoration  of  that  line.  .  .  . 
her  people  have  declared  against  the  extension  of  slavery 
into  any  of  the  territories,  .  .  .  there  should  be  no  sur 
render  of  important  rights,  nor  sacrifice  of  vital  principles."3 

I  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  6.         *  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1861,  p.  519. 

II  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  300-302. 


305]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  105 

Soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  session,  Mr.  Robinson 
introduced  resolutions  favoring  the  formation  of  all  terri 
tory  remaining  after  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  two  states 
with  such  constitutions  as  the  inhabitants  thereof  should 
adopt.1  Curiously  enough,  Robinson  had  been,  but  a  few 
days  before,  the  anti-Weed  candidate  for  speaker,  and  now 
he  championed  a  policy  strongly  supported  by  Weed  but 
repudiated  by  very  many  of  the  latter's  followers.  The  ex 
planation  of  this  situation  lies  in  the  personalities  and  char 
acters  of  Weed  and  Greeley.  The  former  attracted  many, 
while  others  hated  the  fact  and  methods  of  his  leadership; 
Greeley,  on  the  other  hand,  by  his  impracticability,  his  insta 
bility,  his  readiness  to  take  up  various  "  isms  ",  and  his  gen 
eral  inaptitude  in  politics  repelled  many.  The  factions  in 
the  Republican  party  in  New  York  were  as  yet  largely  per 
sonal,  and  had  not  at  this  time  been  consolidated  on  the  basis 
of  principle  into  a  radical  and  a  conservative  wing.  An 
illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  statement  of  one  who 
took  part  in  the  celebrated  canvass  for  United  States  senator 
in  1 86 1  to  the  effect  that  "  Mr.  Weed  might  have  been 
chosen  Senator,  even  when  known  to  vary  in  judgment  on 
questions  vital  in  importance  from  the  party  making  the 
appointment."  2 

A  Democratic  legislative  caucus,  at  which  there  were  also 
present  some  of  the  leading  men  of  the  party  residing  in 
Albany,  resolved  unanimously  to  support  the  Robinson 
resolutions.3  The  Albany  Argus  came  out  in  their  favor, 
thus  agreeing  for  once  with  its  rival,  the  Evening  Journal* 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  39. 

2  Quoted  in  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  322.         3  Tribune,  Jan.  4. 

4  In  a  number  of  editorials,  e.  g.,  Jan.  16,  the  Argus  strongly  favored 
the  passage  of  the  resolutions.  The  Albany  Evening  Journal  of  Jan. 
3,  4,  19,  contained  similar  editorials.  While  the  two  rivals  agreed  on 


106       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [306 

While  the  resolutions  were  being  considered  in  committee, 
both  houses  were  devoting  a  good  deal  of  attention  to  var 
ious  matters  involving  the  great  national  issue  of  the  day. 
The  debates  show  that  the  majority  of  the  Republicans  were 
not  in  accord  with  Weed's  border-state  policy.  The  Demo 
crats  favored  conciliation,  compromise,  delay,  and  the  avoid 
ance  of  every  thing  which  might  conceivably  irritate  the 
South.1  Their  position  was  well  illustrated  in  a  party  de 
bate  in  the  Assembly  on  resolutions 2  to  present  Major 
Anderson  with  a  sword.  While  the  Democrats  expressed 
their  admiration  of  Anderson  and  their  approval  of  his 
course,  they  argued  against  the  resolutions  on  the  ground 
that  their  passage  would  add  bitterness  to  the  existing  state 
of  affairs.3  Now  and  then,  however,  there  was  an  occa- 

this  matter,  it  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  Journal's  posi 
tion  toward  the  South  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Democrats.  In  jus 
tice  to  Weed,  it  should  be  stated  that  the  Journal  advocated  coercion 
of  seceding  states  (Jan.  18),  and  the  putting  of  New  York  into  condi 
tion  for  defence  (Jan.  28).  Weed  simply  maintained  that  there  was  a 
"Union  sentiment  in  the  border  slave  states  worth  preserving,"  and 
that  the  passage  of  the  Robinson  resolutions  would  give  that  Union 
sentiment  the  needed  support  and  sympathy  from  the  North  (Albany 
Evening  Journal,  Jan.  19). 

JThe  Argus,  in  accord  with  the  views  of  the  Democratic  legislators, 
published  such  editorials  as  these:  "  We  say  emphatically,  let  the  great 
State  of  New  York  not  be  foremost  in  kindling  a  flame.  .  .  .  We  re 
peat — if  disunion  must  come,  let  it  come  without  war"  (Jan.  12).  Jan. 
18,  it  said:  "  Shall  we  talk  of  coercing  such  a  Nation?  ...  If  the  at 
tempt  is  made,  New  York  will  not  be  an  accomplice  in  it — certainly  not 
the  Democracy  of  New  York." 

s  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  49. 

5  Argus,  Jan.  9,  n,  12;  Herald,  Jan.  9,  12.  At  first,  but  two  Repub 
licans  (including  Robinson)  favored  the  expression  of  approval  in  some 
other  way  than  by  the  presentation  of  a  sword;  subsequently,  a  number 
of  Republicans  supported  such  a  proposal,  partly  for  the  sake  of  unan 
imity.  Action  on  the  subject  was  postponed  by  a  vote  of  62  to  50  (As 
sembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  82),  and  the  resolutions  were  finally  laid  on 
the  table  (Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  91).  The  attitude  of  the  Demo- 


POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  107 

sional  divergence  from  this  position  by  a  few  of  the  minor 
ity,  anticipating  the  later  War  Democrats.1  Thus,  the  effect 
of  the  news  that  the  Star  of  the  West  had  been  fired  upon 
by  South  Carolina  was  marked.  In  the  Assembly,  the 
Speaker  took  the  floor  and  offered  resolutions  tendering 
to  the  President  "  whatever  in  men  and  money  may  be  re 
quired  to  enable  him  to  enforce  the  laws  and  uphold  the 
authority  of  the  federal  government."  Under  a  patriotic 
impulse  these  resolutions  passed  the  Assembly,  117  to  2,  the 
nays  being  cast  by  New  York  City  Democrats  who  refused  to 
vote  for  what  they  termed  coercion.2  In  the  Senate,  the 
resolutions  were  adopted  by  a  vote  of  28  to  i.8  The  Demo 
crats,  however,  soon  relapsed  into  their  former  attitude. 

About  the  middle  of  January,  a  majority  of  the  select 
committee,  to  which  had  been  referred  in  the  Assembly  so 
much  of  the  Governor's  message  as  related  to  national  dif 
ficulties  as  well  as  the  Robinson  resolutions,  reported  a  series 
of  resolutions  condemning  secession  and  pledging  support 

crats  was  also  shown  in  a  debate  on  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  rumors 
of  cannon  being  made  at  Troy  for  South  Carolina.  Mr.  Kernan,  the 
minority  leader,  opposed  the  resolution  and  every  Democrat  present 
voted  against  it  (Argus,  Jan.  21;  Herald,  Jan.  20).  The  Democratic 
position  was  again  shown  in  a  long  debate  over  a  bill  to  prevent  aiding, 
abetting,  and  comforting  the  enemies  of  the  Republic  (Argus,  Jan.  25). 

1E.  g.,  Senators  Spinola  (Argus,  Jan.  4,  12)  and  J.  McLeod  Murphy 
(Argus,  Jan.  26;  Tribune,  Jan.  26).  The  latter,  in  a  speech  delivered 
near  the  end  of  January,  took  the  ground  that  disunionists  were  guilty 
of  treason,  that  compromise  was  out  of  the  question,  advocated  thor 
oughly  arming  the  State,  and  condemned  the  call  for  a  Democratic 
convention.  Immediately,  one  of  his  Democratic  colleagues  proceeded 
to  read  Murphy  out  of  the  party. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  pp.  76-77;  Argus,  Jan.  \2\Herald,  Jan.  12. 

3  Senate  Journal,  1861,  p.  57.  The  resolutions  were,  of  course,  ap 
proved  by  the  Governor  and  were  telegraphed  by  him  to  Buchanan. 
They  are  printed  in  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp. 
306-7. 


I08       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [308 

to  the  federal  government,  but  ending  with  an  expression  of 
a  desire  for  conciliation  and  with  an  embodiment  of  the 
resolutions  previously  introduced  by  Robinson.1  This  re 
port  was  signed  by  three  Republicans  and  two  Democrats.2 
Two  Republicans  presented  a  minority  report,  reciting  that 
"  the  basis  of  settlement  now  proposed  has,  to  a  certain  ex 
tent,  been  tried  and  found  wanting,"  and  pledging  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  to  use  all  their  influence  "  to 
secure  the  faithful  observance  and  due  execution  "  of  such 
laws  as  were  not  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  judiciary, 
"  as  well  as  to  maintain  all  the  constitutional  rights  of  the 
citizens  of  all  the  States ;  and  we  tender  this  as  the  only  com 
promise  which  can  be  honorably  offered  or  accepted." 8 
These  sentiments  were  more  in  accord  with  those  of  the 
majority  of  the  Republican  members. 

In  the  Senate,  resolutions  4  approved  by  every  member 
of  the  committee  on  federal  relations  declared  that  a  state 
had  no  right  to  secede,  that  the  Legislature  would  sustain 
the  Executive  of  the  State  in  offering  and  pledging  the  mili 
tary  power  and  resources  of  the  State  and  would  "  *  provide 
for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union, 
suppress  insurrection  and  repel  invasions,'  whether  within 
or  without  the  State;"  that  New  York  would  make  equal 
sacrifices  to  preserve  the  Union  and  the  constitutional  rights 
of  the  states ;  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  interfere  with 
slavery  within  the  states;  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  exer 
cise  its  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
except  with  the  approval  of  the  majority  of  voters  in  the 
District  and  the  consent  of  Maryland ;  that  Congress  should 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  pp.  115-116. 
*  Argus,  Jan.  19;  Herald,  Jan.  19. 
'Assembly  documents,  1861,  no.  25. 
4  Senate  Journal,  1861,  p.  67. 


309]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  109 

not  inhibit  or  impair  interstate  slave  traffic;  and  that  while 
the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves  was  a  constitutional  obliga 
tion,  the  law  of  1850  ought  to  be  modified.  Robinson's 
proposals  were,  however,  not  approved ;  and  it  was  this  that 
occasioned  complaint  from  the  Democratic  members  of  the 
committee.  The  resolutions  of  the  committee,  so  far  as 
they  went,  were  concurred  in  by  the  whole  committee;  but 
they  did  not  go  as  far  as  the  minority  desired.  They  failed 
to  touch  upon  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  for 
every  proposition  on  this  point,  including  the  Robinson 
resolutions,  had  been  voted  down  by  the  majority  members 
of  the  committee.1 

A  caucus  was  now  held  to  endeavor  to  produce  harmony 
in  the  Republican  ranks.  One  member  was  reported  to  have 
said  that  the  day  for  conciliation  had  passed ;  another  was 
opposed  to  yielding  an  inch;  a  third  thought  it  a  waste  of 
time  to  consider  compromise  resolutions:  another  declared 
that  the  Chicago  platform  was  a  sufficient  expression  of 
opinion;  and  still  another  wanted  no  conciliation,  but  arm 
ing  the  militia.  Robinson  in  vain  combated  these  ideas.  A 
resolution  declaring  it  inexpedient  to  take  any  further  action 
whatever  on  the  subject — the  effect  of  which  would  be  to 
cut  off  any  compromise  resolutions  in  the  Legislature — was 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  67  to  5. 2 

Two  days  later,  however,  this  program  was  upset  from 
without.  Governor  Morgan  transmitted  to  the  Legislature 
resolutions  from  Virginia  requesting  the  appointment  of 
commissioners  to  the  Peace  Convention  to  be  held  at  Wash 
ington  on  February  4th.  In  the  accompanying  message  he 
declared  that  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of  this  State  de 
sired  that  no  honorable  effort  to  maintain  the  Union  by 

1  Argus,  Jan.  17;  Herald,  Jan.  17. 
1  Herald,  Jan.  23;  Argus,  Jan.  26. 


HO       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [310 

peaceful  means  should  be  left  untried  and  accordingly  he 
recommended  the  appointment  of  commissioners.1  This 
message  reopened  the  subject.  The  Robinson  resolutions 
were  brought  up  again  in  the  assembly  committee  of  the 
whole,  despite  the  caucus  decision.  In  the  course  of  the  de 
bate,  one  Republican  remarked :  "  It  has  also  been  said  that 
the  .  .  .  editor  of  the  Evening  Journal  had  only  to  wave  his 
wand  over  the  Assembly  and  a  majority  of  knees  would  bow, 
but  if  the  wand  was  waved  to  encompass  the  passage  of  these 
resolutions  it  would  be  found  to  have  lost  its  magic  power." 
This  member  spoke  truly;  for  Mr.  Robinson,  influential  as 
he  was  and  though  aided  by  the  support  of  Weed  and  of  the 
Democrats,  could  not  carry  with  him  the  majority  of  his 
party  or  sufficient  of  them  to  pass  the  resolutions.2 

Meanwhile,  Weed  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  came 
out  strongly  in  favor  of  the  appointment  of  commissioners 
to  the  Peace  Convention.  At  the  end  of  January,  the  ma 
jority  of  the  joint  committee,  to  which  the  Virginia  reso 
lutions  had  been  referred,  reported.  They  recommended 
that  there  be  appointed  as  delegates  the  following:  David 
Dudley  Field,  Erastus  Corning,  William  Curtis  Noyes,  Ad- 
dison  Gardiner,  James  S.  Wadsworth,  Greene  C.  Bronson, 
James  C.  Smith,  William  E.  Dodge,  and  Amaziah  B.  James. 
The  report  said  that,  while  "  acceding  to  the  request  of 
Virginia,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  that  this  Legislature  ap 
proves  of  the  propositions  submitted  by  the  General  Assem 
bly  of  that  State,  or  concedes  the  propriety  of  their  adoption 
by  the  proposed  convention."  3  In  the  Assembly,  the  report 
met  with  considerable  opposition.  One  Republican  declared 
that  he  was  not  willing  to  yield  a  jot  of  Republican  prin- 

1  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  309-313. 

1  Argus,  Jan.  30;  Herald,  Jan.  31. 

3  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  pp.  205,  227-8. 


3II]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  m 

ciples;  another  said  that  if  commissioners  were  appointed, 
they  should  all  be  Republicans ;  and  a  third  moved  to  amend 
by  substituting  Republicans  for  the  Democrats  named  by 
the  committee.  Though  thirty-seven  Republicans  voted  for 
this  amendment,1  it  was  defeated  after  a  warm  debate — a 
triumph  for  the  supporters  of  conciliation  led  by  Robinson. 
An  amendment,  however,  that  a  majority  of  the  nine  com 
missioners  should  determine  how  the  State's  five  votes  were 
to  be  cast,  was  carried.2  The  effect  of  this  was  to  place 
New  York's  voice  in  the  convention  in  the  control  of  men 
not  likely  to  yield  anything  important.3  On  the  main  ques 
tion,  thirty-nine  nays  were  cast.4  In  the  Senate,  too,  the 
adoption  of  the  report  was  opposed.  Here  too,  there  was 
an  attempt  to  send  none  but  Republicans.  Finally,  after 
the  names  of  General  Wool  and  John  A.  King  had  been 
added  to  the  delegates,  the  majority  report  was  adopted,  19 
to  I2.5  The  House,  after  a  warm  debate,  later  agreed  to 
the  Senate  amendment,  though  thirty-four  Republicans 
voted  against  so  doing.6  Addison  Gardiner  declined  to 
serve.  A  resolution  designating  in  his  stead  Thurlow  Weed 
was  then  passed,  every  Democrat  present  voting  aye;  while 
in  the  Assembly,  seventeen  Republicans  voted  nay.7  Weed, 
however,  refused  to  accept,  "  though  sympathizing  warmly 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  225. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  pp.  226,  227. 

8  For  New  York's  course  in  the  Peace  Convention,  see  the  Annual 
Cyclopaedia  for  1861,  p.  567. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  1861 ,  p.  228. 

5  Senate  Journal,  1861,  pp.  141,  142,  143;  Argus,  Feb.  5,  6;  Tribune, 
Feb.  5.  Senator  J.  McLeod  Murphy  acted  with  the  Republicans  on 
this  occasion  and  spoke  strongly  against  accepting  Virginia's  invitation. 
Otherwise,  the  debate  was  on  party  lines. 

8  Argus,  Feb.  6;  Tribune,  Feb.  7;  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  pp.  256- 
260. 

7  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  283;  Senate  Journal,  1861,  p.  157. 


112        NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [312 

with  this  beneficent  movement;"  and  by  his  inspiration, 
Francis  Granger,  who  as  a  member  of  Harrison's  cabinet 
and  as  a  candidate  for  governor  and  vice-president  had  had 
a  distinguished  political  career  almost  a  generation  before, 
was  chosen  to  fill  the  vacancy.1 

The  differences  in  the  Republican  ranks  seemed  to  some 
not  unlikely  to  lead  to  new  political  alignments,  in  which 
the  Democrats  and  the  Weed  Republicans  would  join  hands 
on  the  principle  of  supporting  such  a  compromise  as  was  ad 
vocated  by  both.  On  the  other  hand,  Thurlow  Weed  and 
Horace  Greeley  kept  up  an  acrimonious  controversy  through 
out  the  month  of  February.  A  Tribune  editorial  said :  "  In 
the  present  crisis,  the  Republican  policy  is  no  new  compro 
mise  with  Slavery.  The  Democrats,  on  the  other  hand,  de 
clare  themselves  ready  and  anxious  to  make  any  and  every 
compromise  that  can  be  asked  for.  In  this  state  of  things, 
all  compromisers  are  surely  tending  to  the  Democratic 
party."  2  The  Times  warned  the  Tribune  that  perseverance 
in  criticising  Weed  and  Seward's  position  would  result  in 
splitting  the  party.3  The  Democratic  leaders  apparently 
thought  they  saw  an  opportunity  of  effecting  such  a  result 
or  at  least  of  consolidating  on  this  issue  their  own  party. 
Their  influential  men  professed  to  believe  and  their  prin 
cipal  organs  constantly  asserted  that,  if  the  Crittenden  com 
promise  were  but  submitted  to  the  people  of  New  York 
State,  it  would  be  ratified  there  by  a  huge  majority.*  The 

'Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  303;  Senate  Journal,  1861,  p.  190. 

*  Tribune,  Feb.  9.  s  Times,  Feb.  5. 

* E.  g.,  Letter  of  Seymour  to  Crittenden,  in  Chapman's  Life  of  Crit 
tenden,  ii,  pp. 254-5;  Argus,  Dec.  27,  1860,  claiming  that  the  change  in 
New  York's  vote  of  November,  1860,  necessary  to  reverse  the  decision 
then  made  had  "already  been  made  in  public  opinion;  and  the  Repub 
lican  party  itself  is  so  far  modified  in  character  by  the  responsibilities 
of  power  .  .  .  that  a  large  portion  of  its  members  would  gladly  seize 


5IjJ  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  113 

example  of  the  Empire  State,  it  was  said,  would  be  of  tre 
mendous  influence  throughout  the  country.  The  Repub 
licans,  however,  blocked  the  way.  In  the  Senate,  a  bill  for 
such  submission  was  introduced  by  a  Democrat.  An  attempt 
to  have  it  considered  was  opposed  by  the  Republicans,  and 
it  was  buried  by  reference  to  the  committee  on  federal  rela 
tions.1 

Thus  headed  off,  and  feeling  sincerely — very  likely  from 
patriotic  as  much  as  from  political  motives — that  New 
York's  voice  should  be  heard  for  compromise,  her  Demo 
cratic  leaders  took  an  extraordinary  step.  On  the  i8th  of 
January,  the  Douglas  State  Committee  issued  a  call  for  a 
convention  to  be  held  at  Albany  on  the  last  day  of  the 
month.  This  document  asserted  that  "  the  alarming  condi 
tion  of  our  country  .  .  .  demands  an  effort  by  the  Demo 
cratic  party  to  avert  the  threatened  destruction  of  our  Na 
tional  Union."  Those  who  refused  to  make  concessions 
were  declared  to  be  actuated  by  treasonable  designs.  "  In 
this  emergency,  conservative  men  of  all  classes  call  upon 
our  time-honored  party  ...  to  cooperate  with  patriotic 
citizens  elsewhere,  and  especially  with  the  efforts  of  the 
'  Border  States  '  in  putting  down  the  agitations  and  con 
spiracies  of  the  secessionists  of  the  South  and  the  ultra 
Republicans  of  the  North."  The  call  then  went  on  to  point 
the  way  for  Democratic  opposition  to  measures  of  defen- 

the  opportunity  of  compromise.  Let  such  a  measure  as  that  said  to 
emanate  from  the  representatives  of  the  Border  States  be  submitted  to 
the  electors  of  New  York,  and  it  would  have  twice  the  majority  that 
Lincoln  obtained.  ..."  Another  sample  editorial  is  that  of  January 
23d,  which  read:  "Will  the  Republican  majority  of  our  Legislature 
abide  this  test?  The  men  who  bluster  about  coercion  and  are  inviting 
civil  war,  dare  not  submit  to  a  popular  vote."  In  February,  the  same 
paper  daily  printed  at  the  head  of  its  editorials  the  demand,  "  Let  the 
People  be  Heard." 

^Herald,  Jan.  31;  Argus,  Jan.  31. 


II4       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [314 

sive  preparation  by  New  York.  "  The  honor  and  interests 
of  our  own  State,"  it  read,  "  also  call  for  action  on  our  part 
to  check  schemes  of  corrupt  legislation  which  are  already 
engendered  under  pretexts  of  military  and  coercive  pro 
jects."  *  Democrats  insisted  that  the  convening  of  such  a 
body  was  not  a  political  but  a  patriotic  move.2  The  Argus 
said,  "  There  never  was  a  convention  so  little  partisan,  so 
much  '  above  party  '  ...  as  this  promises  to  be."  It 
claimed  that  the  call  had  been  issued  by  the  Democracy 
because  it  was  the  only  existing  organization  that  could 
make  the  appeal,  but  that  the  response  was  made,  as  it  was 
intended,  by  the  conservative  masses  regardless  of  past  affil 
iations.3  On  the  other  hand,  the  Albany  Evening  Journal 
said,  "  .  .  .  very  few  [were  present]  not  hitherto  recog 
nized  as  members  of  the  Democratic  party." 

The  convention  assembled  on  the  appointed  day.  The  list 
of  delegates  included  very  many  of  the  most  distinguished 
New  York  Democrats  then  living.  From  Albany  County 
came  Judge  Amasa  J.  Parker,  Lyman  Tremain,  and  Erastus 
Corning;  from  Cayuga,  ex-Governor  Throop;  from  Dutch- 
ess,  William  Kelly,  candidate  for  governor  in  1860;  from 
Erie,  George  W.  Clinton,  son  of  Governor  Clinton;  from 
Genesee,  Dean  Richmond.  New  York  County  had,  as  usual, 
two  contesting  delegations.  That  sent  by  Tammany  was  a 
truly  imposing  one.  It  included  "  Prince  "  John  Van  Buren, 
Martin  Van  Buren's  son,  whom  contemporaries  described 
as  a  witty  and  brilliant  orator;  Samuel  J.  Tilden  and  Re 
corder  John  T.  Hoffman,  future  governors  of  the  State; 
James  T.  Brady,  Breckinridge  candidate  for  governor  in 
1860;  Charles  O'Conor,  the  distinguished  lawyer;  Elijah  F. 
Purely,  the  "War  Horse"  of  the  "  soft "  Democracy; 

1  Herald,  Jan.  19.  *  Argus,  Jan.  28,  29. 

8  Argus,  Jan.  31.  *  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  31. 


315]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  115 

William  M.  Tweed,  Peter  B.  Sweeney,  and  Richard  B.  Con 
nolly,  three  later  "  heroes  "  of  New  York  City's  municipal 
annals;  August  Belmont,  chairman  of  the  National  Demo 
cratic  Committee — "  that  fastidious  millionaire,"  the  Trib 
une  said,  "  who  has  been  accorded  the  distinguished  honor 
of  assisting  the  Fourth  Ward  porter-house  keeper  in  repre 
senting  Water  Street  and  the  Five  Points;"  Daniel  E. 
Sickles,  already  prominent  for  a  rather  stormy  congres 
sional  career,  and  later  to  make  his  mark  in  the  war ;  Colonel 
Michael  Corcoran;  William  D.  Kennedy,  who  succeeded 
Fowler  as  grand  sachem  of  Tammany  and  who,  while 
colonel  of  the  Tammany  regiment,  lost  his  life;  General 
Hiram  Walbridge,  late  member  of  Congress;  Oswald  Ot- 
tendorfer  of  the  Staats  Zcitung;  John  Clancy,  editor  of  the 
Leader;  George  Law ;  Edward  Cooper,  later  mayor  of  New 
York  City;  Gustavus  W.  Smith  and  Mansfield  Lovell,  both 
of  whom  became  generals  in  the  Confederate  army ;  Wilson 
G.  Hunt;  John  McKeon;  and  Joshua  J.  Henry,  the  mer 
chant  who  was  instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  fusion  of 
1860,  or  as  the  Tribune  characterized  him,  "  inventor  and 
patentee  of  Union-Saving  Committees,  and  wholesale  and 
retail  dealer  in  Fusion  tickets  ".  Ben  Wood,  John  Coch- 
rane,  and  Gilbert  Dean  were  the  only  prominent  names  in 
Mozart's  delegation.  Oneida  County  sent  ex-Governor 
Horatio  Seymour;  Orleans,  former  Lieutenant-Governor 
Sanford  E.  Church;  from  Rensselaer  came  John  A.  Gris- 
wold  and  James  S.  Thayer;  from  Suffolk,  ex-Speaker  Will 
iam  H.  Lucllow;  and  from  Westchester,  Edwin  Croswell, 
once  editor  of  the  Albany  Argus  and  member  of  the  Re 
gency  in  its  palmy  days.  Two  former  Whigs  of  prominence 
were  included  in  those  elected  as  delegates :  ex-President 
Fillmore  and  William  Duer.  Fillmore's  presence  might 
have  lent  color  to  the  claim  that  the  gathering  was  a  non- 


n6       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

partisan  one;  but  he  did  not  attend.1  Horace  Greeley  later 
described  the  convention  as  "  probably  the  strongest  and 
most  imposing  assemblage  of  delegates  ever  convened  within 
the  State."  2 

The  Albany  Regency  ran  the  convention  as  usual ;  for  it 
was  called  to  order  by  Peter  Cagger,  generally  managed  by 
Dean  Richmond,  the  temporary  chairman  was  Sanford  E. 
Church,  and  the  president,  Judge  Parker.  No  sooner  had 
Church  been  installed  than  there  occurred  what  had  now 
come  to  be  a  regular  feature  of  New  York  Democratic  con 
ventions  :  a  contest  between  Tammany  and  Mozart.  Some 
days  previous  to  this,  Tammany  Hall  had  instructed  its  dele 
gates  to  withdraw  in  case  Mozart  was  recognized/  Mo 
zart,  too,  in  its  general  committee  had  prepared  to  assert 
its  claim.  It  passed  resolutions  denouncing  its  rival  as  a 
corrupt  organization,  and  appealed  to  the  convention  "  to 
discountenance  the  unfounded  and  preposterous  assump 
tion  of  the  bogus  delegation  "  of  Tammany.4  When  the 
convention  assembled,  the  Tammany  men  insisted  that  they 
alone  should  be  seated  from  New  York  County.  Mozart 
was  willing  to  divide  the  vote  with  Tammany.5  The  Re 
gency  leaders  and  the  up-state  members  favored  this  com 
promise;  for  the  votes  controlled  by  Mozart  were  often  nec 
essary  to  Democratic  success  in  the  State,  while  the  struggle 
for  recognition,  back  of  which  lay  a  scramble  for  the  pat 
ronage  of  the  metropolis,  was  not  of  direct  concern  to  any 
but  the  two  Halls.  Accordingly,  the  delegates  resolved 

1  List  of  delegates  published  in  the  Argus,  Jan.  31;  Tribune,  Jan.  30. 
Greeley  later  wrote  that  "  there  was  a  large  and  most  respectable  repre 
sentation  of  the  old  Whig  party,  with  a  number  who  had  figured  as 
'  Americans'  "  (American  Conflict,  i,  p.  388). 

'Greeley's  American  Conflict,  \,  p.  388.  5 Herald,  Jan.  29. 

4  Herald,  Jan.  30.  5  Herald,  Feb.  i. 


317]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  117 

that  not  being  assembled  for  partisan  purposes,  they  did 
not  wish  to  decide  which  of  the  rival  sets  of  contestants 
was  the  regular  one,  and  that  therefore  both  should  be 
admitted.  Thereupon,  Tammany  withdrew  for  consul 
tation  and  voted  not  to  return.1  Such  a  bolt  might  have 
led  to  a  war  between  Tammany  and  the  Regency.  A 
resolution  inviting  the  Tammany  delegation  to  return  was 
unanimously  carried  in  the  convention  on  the  second  day; 
and  a  committee  headed  by  Seymour  was  appointed  to  plead 
with  the  seceders.  This  proved  successful.  Tammany  in 
the  end  returned,  contenting  itself  with  a  formal  communi 
cation  stating  the  representations  made  to  it  that  the  admis 
sion  of  Mozart  was  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  decision  as  to 
which  Hall  was  the  regular  organization.2 

Meanwhile,  Horatio  Seymour  on  the  afternoon  of  the 
first  day's  session  delivered  a  speech  filled  with  sympathy 
for  the  South — sentiments  to  be  used  later  against  him.3 
"  Revolution,"  he  said, 

has  actually  begun.  The  term  "  secession  "  divests  it  of  none 
of  its  terrors.  .  .  .  All  virtue,  patriotism,  and  intelligence 
seem  to  have  fled  from  our  National  Capitol ;  it  has  been  well 
likened  to  a  conflagration  of  an  asylum  for  madmen — some 
look  on  with  idiotic  imbecility,  some  in  sullen  silence,  and  some 
scatter  the  firebrands  which  consume  the  fabric  above  them, 
and  bring  upon  all  a  common  destruction. 

Fanaticism,  he  declared,  was  to  blame  for  all  this  evil.  'The 
agitation  of  the  question  of  slavery  has  thus  far  brought 

1  Herald,  Feb.  i;  Argus,  Feb.  i;  correspondence  between  August 
Belmont,  chairman  of  the  Tammany  delegation  and  Amasa  J.  Parker, 
president  of  the  convention  (Herald,  Feb.  2) . 

*  Argus,  Feb.  i;  Herald,  Feb.  2. 

'The  entire  speech  is  printed  in  the  Argus,  Feb.  6. 


IX8       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [318 

far  greater  social,  moral  and  legislative  evils  upon  the  peo 
ple  of  the  free  States  than  it  has  upon  the  institutions  against 
whom  [sic]  it  has  been  excited."  Then  he  reviewed  the 
subject  of  controversy,  rinding  that  in  the  acquisition  of  ter 
ritory,  the  North  had  obtained  the  advantage,  that  the 
South  did  not  ask  to  extend  slavery,  and  that  the  Repub 
licans  under  the  cry  of  "  no  extension  "  really  were  "  agi 
tating  for  repeal  and  restrictions."  Reverting  to  this  topic 
of  the  inequality  of  North  and  South  later  in  the  speech, 
Seymour  asserted  that  the  North  had  gained  in  population 
and  political  power,  not  merely  because  of  natural  causes, 
but  also  because  of  "  a  policy  that  favored  the  commercial 
interests  and  immigration  from  other  lands.  This  policy 
has  ever  been  upheld  loyally  by  the  South.  .  .  .  Would  it 
not  be  base  and  cowardly  to  withhold  at  this  day  those  cour 
tesies  and  that  consideration  which  they  showed  in  the  days 
of  their  comparative  strength  ?  "  The  South,  Seymour  said, 
was  justly  alarmed  by  "  their  most  bitter  and  unscrupulous 
assailants."  He  had  no  word  of  condemnation  for  that 
section. 

The  alternatives  for  settling  the  controversy  were,  he  de 
clared,  compromise  or  civil  war.  "  Let  us  see,"  he  went  on, 
"  if  successful  coercion  by  the  North  is  less  revolutionary 
than  successful  secession  by  the  South."  He  compared  the 
resources,  the  legislation  and  the  state  finances  of  the  South 
ern  states  with  those  of  the  Northern  states,  all  to  the  advan 
tage  nf  the  former.  He  asked,  how  was  the  war  to  be  con 
ducted.  He  spoke  of  the  "  madness  of  trying  to  muster 
armies  to  occupy  their  [the  Southern  states']  territory." 
For  exciting  a  servile  insurrection,  we  had  "  cursed  the 
brutal  inhumanity  "  of  Great  Britain.  As  for  a  blockade, 
Seymour  pointed  to  the  immense  length  of  the  coast,  to  the 
number  of  harbors  in  the  South,  and  to  the  failure  of  Great 


POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  119 

Britain  with  superior  naval  forces  successfully  to  block 
ade  the  coast.  If  such  a  measure  were  effective,  the  North 
through  the  loss  of  the  coasting  trade  would  be  the  chief 
sufferers.  "  We  can  inflict  great  misery  upon  the  South," 
Seymour  continued,  "  but  could  human  ingenuity  devise  a 
warfare  more  destructive  to  all  the  interests  of  the  Northern 
States  of  this  Confederacy?"  "  Upon  what  field  shall  this 
contest  be  waged?"  he  asked.  "Upon  what  spot  shall 
Americans  shed  American  blood?"  The  question  reduced 
itself  to  this,  he  said :  Shall  we  have  compromise  after  war, 
or  compromise  without  war  ? 

Then  he  pleaded  that  concession  be  made  to  save  the 
border  states.  If  the  Crittenden  compromise  were  but  sub 
mitted  to  the  people  of  New  York,  he  did  not  fear  the  re 
sult;  but  if  it  was  unhappily  rejected,  the  days  of  the  Re 
public  were  numbered.  "  We  may  have  not  only  one  but 
many  Confederacies.  ...  In  the  downfall  of  our  nation 
and  amidst  its  crumbling  ruins,"  he  concluded, 

we  will  cling  to  the  fortunes  of  New  York.  We  will  stand 
together,  and  so  shape  the  future  that  its  glory  and  greatness 
and  wonderful  advantages  shall  not  be  sacrificed  to  rival  in 
terests.  We  will  loyally  follow  its  flag  through  the  gloom  and 
perils  of  the  future,  and  in  the  saddened  hour  there  will  re 
main  a  gleam  of  hope  and  we  can  still  hail  with  pride  the 
motto  emblazoned  on  its  shield  "  Excelsior." 

At  the  second  day's  session,  Lyman  Tremain  and  James 
S.  Thayer  spoke  strongly  against  coercion.  Tremain  came 
to  hold  different  views  after  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  On 
this  occasion,  he  denounced  the  Republican  leaders;  but  he 
was  proud  to  see  many  honorable  exceptions  everywhere. 
"  I  should  do  injustice,"  he  said, 

...  if  I  did  not  mention  among  these  Lucius  Robinson,  .  .  . 


120       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [320 

who  has  not  only  introduced  resolutions  for  conciliation  and 
peace,  but  has  sufficient  manliness  about  him  to  stand  up  in 
defiance  of  the  iron  rule  of  the  caucus  and  maintain  his  posi 
tion  as  a  patriot  and  a  man.  There  is  another  man  to  whom 
I  wish  to  do  justice.  .  .  .  That  man  is  rising  above  the  ob 
ligations  of  party,  and  is  appealing  to  his  political  friends  to 
take  the  view  of  this  crisis  which  is  entertained  by  the  Demo 
cratic  party.  I  mean  Thurlow  Weed.1 

The  name  of  Robinson  was  greeted  with  cheers,  and  Weed's 
with  an  even  greater  outburst 2 — a  remarkable  tribute  from 
a  Democratic  convention  and  one  which  might  well  seem  to 
contemporaries  prophetic  of  a  new  party  alignment.  While 
Tremain  spoke  strongly  against  secession,  he  palliated  the 
act  by  saying  that  the  South  had  "  had  the  most  terrible 
provocation  to  which  civilized  man  has  ever  been  subjected, " 
and  he  went  on  to  condemn  coercion  in  the  most  violent 
terms.3 

Thayer  declared,  "  When  the  tie  is  broken,  when  fraternal 
hands  are  unclasped — never,  never,  shall  they  be  raised  in 
hostility  to  each  other  " — a  sentiment  which  was  loudly  ap 
plauded.  He  advocated  adjustment  through  the  action  of 
the  border  states;  and  if  this  could  not  be  accomplished, 
"  we  can  at  least,"  he  said,  "  in  an  authoritative  way  and  a 
practical  manner  arrive  at  the  basis  of  a  peaceful  separation 
(renewed  cheers)."  He  took  a  firm  stand  against  what  he 
called  civil  war  under  the  guise  of  enforcement  of  the  laws. 
"  Against  this,  under  all  circumstances,  in  every  phase  and 
form,  we  must  now  and  at  all  times  oppose  a  resolute  and 
unfaltering  resistance.  ...  if  a  revolution  of  force  is  to 

1  Argus,  Feb.  16. 

1  Argus,  Feb.  2;  Tribune,  Feb.  2. 

3Tremain's  speech  is  published  in  full  in  the  Argus,  Feb.  16. 


321]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  121 

begin,  it  shall  be  inaugurated  at  home  (cheers)."  Even 
the  philosophical  Tilden  in  his  address  was  outspoken  against 
coercion,  showing  the  disastrous  consequences  of  any  such 
attempt  against  states  so  strong  and  resourceful  as  those  of 
the  South,  and  declaring  that  "  he,  for  one,  would  resist 
under  any  and  all  circumstances,  the  use  of  force  to  coerce 
the  South  into  the  Union,  .  .  ."  2  The  prevailing  opinion 
among  the  delegates  was  also  expressed  in  a  speech  by  Chan 
cellor  Walworth,  justifying  by  the  example  of  the  Revolu 
tionary  patriots  the  spirit  of  the  South  in  resistance  to  the 
laws,  and  urging  anything  but  civil  war.3 

In  view  of  these  utterances  and  the  favorable  manner  in 
which  they  were  received,  the  resolutions  were  milder  than 
might  have  been  expected  and  bore  signs  of  having  been 
toned  down  by  Seymour  and  other  cautious  politicians. 
An  attempt  on  the  floor  of  the  convention  to  carry  an  amend 
ment  "  imploring  the  general  government  to  abstain  from 
the  use  of  any  force  "  pending  the  consideration  of  com 
promise  measures,  was  opposed  by  Mr.  Ludlow  of  the  com 
mittee  on  resolutions,  as  antagonistic  to  the  defence  of  the 
national  capital  should  it  be  attacked.  Several  delegates 
argued  for  the  adoption  of  the  amendment,  but  it  was 
finally  withdrawn  and  the  original  resolution  adopted  unani 
mously.  It  was  during  this  debate  that  George  W.  Clinton, 
ripe  in  years  and  honor,  uttered  his  patriotic  but  discord 
ant  note  (which  was  audibly  dissented  from)  that  "  there 
could  be  no  legal  secession  of  a  State,  but  that  States  which 
did  secede  were  in  a  state  of  rebellion."  4 

1  Thayer's  speech  is  published  in  full  in  the  Argus,  Feb.  18,      See 
also  Greeley's  American  Conflict,  i,  pp.  392-3. 
*  Argus,  Feb.  2. 

5  Argus,  Feb.  2;  Greeley's  American  Conflict,  i,  p.  393. 
4  Argus,  Feb.  2;  Tribune,  Feb.  2. 


122        NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [322 

Though  the  resolutions  were  more  moderate  than  some  of 
the  delegates  preferred,  yet  the  document  showed  that  the 
Democrats  of  New  York  desired  compromise — favored  it 
so  earnestly  that  their  convention  gave  approval  to  some 
rather  remarkable  proposals  looking  toward  action  in  that 
direction.  The  opening  resolution  appealed  to  all  citizens 
to  rise  above  party.  Then  came  a  strong  condemnation  of 
coercion,  with  the  assertion  that  "  the  worst  and  the  most 
ineffective  argument  that  can  be  addressed  by  the  confed 
eracy  of  its  adhering  members  to  the  seceding  States  is  civil 
war."  Adjustment  of  pending  difficulties  by  compromise, 
support  of  the  border  states  in  their  efforts  to  bring  about 
such  a  result,  and  the  adoption  of  the  Crittenden  compro 
mise  or  some  other  measure  acceptable  to  the  border  states 
were  favored.  It  was  further  determined  that  a  committee 
of  five  be  appointed  to  urge  the  New  York  Legislature 
to  submit  the  Crittenden  compromise  to  the  voters  of  the 
State  at  the  earliest  practicable  date,  that  Congress  be 
urged  to  submit  amendments  to  the  constitution  for  rati 
fication  by  the  states,  and  that  if  Congress  failed  to  act, 
"  the  Legislature  of  this  State  be  requested  to  take  the 
initiatory  steps  under  the  constitution  for  summoning  a  gen 
eral  convention  for  proposing  amendments.  .  .  ."  Another 
resolution  favored  the  appointment  of  commissioners  to  the 
Peace  Convention ;  and  it  was  resolved  that  "  should  the 
Legislature  not  appoint  the  said  commissioners,  .  .  .  this 
Convention  hereby  appoint  Millard  Fillmore,  Addison  Gard 
iner,  Greene  C.  Bronson,  Erastus  Corning,  Horatio  Sey 
mour,  Washington  Hunt,  Amasa  J.  Parker,  Charles 
O'Conor,  and  Samuel  J.  Tilden  as  such  commissioners,  on 
the  part  of  the  friends  of  conciliation  in  the  State  of  New 
York."  All  these  except  Fillmore  and  Hunt  were  Demo 
crats,  and  Hunt  was  fast  drifting  into  the  Democratic  ranks. 


323]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  123 

This  was  a  rather  inconsistent  ending  to  a  document  be 
ginning  with  an  appeal  to  rise  above  party.  On  motion 
of  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  a  committee  to  correspond  with  the 
Democrats  of  other  states  on  the  project  of  a  general  con 
vention  to  amend  the  constitution  was  appointed.  Other 
committees  to  present  resolutions  to  Congress  and  to  me 
morialize  the  Legislature  were  named,  after  which  the  con 
vention  adjourned.1 

It  cannot  be  said  that  this  extraordinary  body  accom 
plished  any  good,  from  either  the  party  or  the  patriotic  point 
of  view.  For  days  thereafter,  the  Argus  printed  at  the  top 
of  its  editorial  columns  an  appeal  headed,  "  Let  the  People 
be  Heard."  The  Democrats,  it  said,  "  demand  that  the 
people  may  be  allowed  to  vote  for  or  against  the  Crittenden 
Compromise.  The  Republicans  refuse  to  submit  to  the 
popular  test/'  This  was  quite  true,  and  the  mass  of  the 
Republicans  were  not  to  be  moved  by  such  means  from  their 
position. 

Something  must  be  said  of  other  expressions  of  the  'atti 
tude  of  New  York  Democrats  during  the  first  few  months 
of  the  year.  In  New  York  City,  the  most  extreme  senti 
ments  of  sympathy  for  the  South  were  uttered.  At  the  be 
ginning  of  January,  Mayor  Wood  sent  to  the  Common 
Council  his  famous  message,  in  which  he  said : 

It  would  seem  that  a  dissolution  of  the  federal  Union  is  in 
evitable.  .  .  .  If  these  forebodings  shall  be  realized  .  .  .[it] 
will  not  only  be  necessary  for  us  to  settle  the  relations  which 
we  shall  hold  to  other  cities  and  States,  but  to  establish,  if  we 

can,  new  ones  with  a  portion  of  our  own  State With 

our  aggrieved  brethren  of  the  slave  States  we  have  friendly 
relations  and  a  common  sympathy.  .  .  .  While  other  portions 

1  Argus,  Feb.  2;  Tribune,  Feb.  2;  Herald,  Feb.  2. 


124       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [324 

of  our  State  have,  unfortunately,  been  imbued  with  the  fanat 
ical  spirit  which  actuates  a  portion  of  the  people  of  New  Eng 
land,  the  city  of  New  York  has  unfalteringly  preserved  the 
integrity  of  its  principles  in  adherence  to  the  compromises  of 
the  constitution  and  the  equal  rights  of  the  people  of  all  the 
States. 

Then,  after  speaking  of  the  aggressions  and  usurpations 
of  the  state  legislature  at  the  expense  of  the  metropolis, 
Wood  continued :  "How  we  shall  rid  ourselves  of  this  odious 
and  oppressive  connection,  it  is  not  for  me  to  determine." 
He  virtually  confessed  that  his  scheme  was  impracticable, 
since  he  acknowledged  that  the  legislature  would  not  consent 
to  it  and  that  a  resort  to  arms  must  not  be  thought  of.  But 
he  asked  nevertheless :  " .  .  .  why  should  not  New  York 
City,  instead  of  supporting  by  her  contributions  in  revenue 
two-thirds  of  the  expenses  of  the  United  States,  become  also 
equally  independent?  As  a  free  city,  with  but  a  nominal 
duty  on  imports,  her  local  government  could  be  supported 
without  taxation  upon  her  people.  .  .  .m  What  a  paradise 
that  would  have  been  for  a  politician  like  Wood. 

A  similar  idea — New  York  State  becoming  independent 
or  else  the  head  of  a  free-trade  confederacy  embracing  the 
middle  west  and  western  States  and  excluding  New  Eng 
land — had  been  broached  by  the  Albany  Argus  as  early  as 
the  latter  part  of  November,  1860,  and  had  been  reverted 
to  more  than  once.  In  an  editorial  entitled  "  The  Sentiment 
of  New  York,"  the  Argus  said : 

We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  three-fourths  of  the 
people  of  New  York  would  condemn  any  attempt  to  treat  the 
States  of  the  South  as  Rebels,  instead  of  removing  their  griev- 

1  The  message  is  printed  in  full  in  the  Herald,  Jan.  8. 


325]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  125 

ances  .  .  .  ,  and  would  not  only  condemn  but  resist  such  an 
attempt.  .  .  .  When,  however,  the  Southern  States  become 
de  facto  a  separate  Confederacy,  we  shall  consider  the  present 
Union  at  an  end  in  all  its  parts.  Then  New  York  will  seek  to 
gather  around  her,  in  mutual  relations  of  friendship,  the  States 
which  will  naturally  seek  her  alliance,  and  will  open  her  ports 
and  offer  her  internal  lines  of  communication  to  their  use. 
She  will  preserve  her  own  freedom,  and  give  to  her  sister  con 
federates  and  to  the  world  the  boon  of  freedom  of  trade.1 

On  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Daniel  E. 
Sickles  declared  that  "  in  the  event  of  secession  in  the  South, 
New  York  City  would  free  herself  from  the  hated  Repub 
lican  '  State '  government  of  New  York  and  throw  open  her 
ports  to  free  commerce."  2  Perhaps,  these  were  not  typical 
utterances.  When,  however,  we  find  the  same  or  similar 
treasonable  views  approved  by  such  rival  factors  in  the  New 
York  Democracy  as  the  organ  of  the  Regency,  Wood,  and  a 
prominent  member  of  Tammany,  and  when  this  fact  is  con 
sidered  in  connection  with  the  Albany  convention  of  Janu 
ary,  1 86 1,  perhaps  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose — un 
pleasant  as  it  may  be — that  there  was  a  considerable  de 
gree  of  like  sentiment  among  the  Democrats  of  New  York, 
which  the  events  of  April  prevented  from  coming  into  fuller 

1  Argus,   Dec.   15,   1860;  similar  editorials,   Dec.   i,   10.     Nov.  26  it 
said:    "  Separation  is  dissolution.     Once  establish    a    separation,  and 
New  York  would  look  for  itself."     Similar  editorials,  Nov.  22,  27. 

2  Burgess,  Civil   War  and  the  Constitution,   i,   p.  147.     The  Tribune 
(Dec.  6,  1860)  quoted  the  New  York  Express  to  the  same  effect;  the 
same  scheme  is  set   forth  in  the  Washington  correspondence  of  the 
Herald  (Dec.  8,  1860) .     See  also  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States, 
iii,  pp. 370-71,  quoting  MSS.  Confederate  Diplomatic  Correspondence  and 
William  H.  Russell's  Diary.     Also  "  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,"  North 
American  Review,  zyLKiyi,  p. 140.     Buchanan  in  a  letter  of  December  22, 
1860,  to  Royal  Phelps,  refers  to  the  existence  of  the  idea  ( Works,  ed. 
by  Moore,  xi,  p.  74). 


126       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [326 

view.  At  any  rate,  such  expressions  were  mischievous, 
since,  as  is  well  known,  they  encouraged  the  secessionists  to 
believe  that  the  North  would  be  divided  in  case  of  war. 

On  the  28th  of  January,  two  days  before  the  Democratic 
State  Convention,  a  great  "  Union-saving "  meeting  took 
place  at  Cooper  Institute,  in  which  men  of  all  parties  which 
had  fused  against  Lincoln  participated.  This  meeting  was 
more  moderate  in  tone.  The  resolutions  adopted,  endors 
ing  the  Crittenden  compromise,  were  comparatively  mild. 
The  principal  speaker,  James  T.  Brady,  made  a  plea  to  the 
South  to  be  generous  and  to  remain  with  the  Northerners 
so  as  to  give  them  a  chance  to  gain  a  victory  for  the  Demo 
cratic  party.  While  he  said  that  he  did  not  believe  in 
the  practicability  of  coercion,  he  proposed  three  cheers  for 
Major  Anderson,  which  the  audience  gave  in  a  hearty 
manner.  The  meeting  adopted  a  resolution  appointing  three 
commissioners  to  the  conventions  of  South  Carolina,  Flor 
ida,  Alabama,  Georgia,  and  Mississippi.1 

In  the  latter  part  of  January,  Mayor  Wood  had  another 
opportunity  to  show  his  ultra  sympathy  with  the  South. 
The  metropolitan  police  having  seized  twenty-eight  cases 
of  muskets  bound  for  Savannah,  Wood  sent  a  dispatch  to 
Toombs  saying,  "  If  I  had  the  power,  I  should  summarily 
punish  the  authors  of  this  illegal  and  unjustifiable  seizure  of 
private  property."  Wood's  hand  was  further  shown  in  a 
series  of  violent  resolutions  adopted  at  a  full  and  enthusiastic 
meeting  of  the  Mozart  Hall  General  Committee  on  the 

1  Herald,  Jan.  29. 

*  Herald,  Feb.  10.  The  Albany  Argus  (Feb.  12)  approved  Wood's 
action.  In  the  issue  of  February  isth  it  assailed  Superintendent  of 
Police  Kennedy  for  seizing  rifles  intended  for  the  South,  declaring  that 
the  seizure  was  illegal,  tended  "to  embroil  this  State  in  controversies 
with  Southern  States,"  and  was  a  dangerous,  arbitrary  precedent. 


327]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  127 

fourth  of  April.  A  week  before  Sumter  was  fired  on,  these 
resolutions  declared  that  the  "  causes  of  complaint  of  our 
Southern  brethren  should  be  listened  to,  recognized,  and 
removed;"  they  condemned  the  Republican  majority  in 
Congress  for  refusing  to  concede  to  the  South  any  of  its 
"  reasonable  demands ;  "  they  asserted  that 

the  rapid  developments  of  the  last  five  months  have  rendered 
the  existence  of  the  Southern  confederacy  a  historical  fact; 
that,  excepting  by  the  free,  spontaneous  act  of  the  separate 
members  composing  it,  its  independent  nationality  can  only  be 
interfered  with  by  violence ;  and  that  we  are  opposed  to  every 
form  of  menace,  restraint,  or  coercion,  under  whatsoever  pre 
text  of  enforcing  law,  collecting  revenue,  or  retaking  property, 
which  may  lead  to  a  conflict  with  the  seceded  States.  ...  In 
an  age  when  oppressed  nationalities  .  .  .  are  seeking  remedies 
for  injustice  and  oppression  by  asserting  local  independence 
and  vindicating  the  "  right  of  revolution  "...  it  behooves  the 
central  government  at  Washington  and  the  State  authorities 
at  Albany  to  pause,  before  they  persist  in  efforts  to  force  even 
upon  a  million  and  a  half  of  Union-loving  people  either  a  tariff 
by  which  their  prosperity  is  undermined,  or  a  municipal  govern 
ment  which  virtually  asserts  the  principle  of  taxation  without 
representation.1 

Besides  the  Democratic  convention,  the  political  situation 
in  New  York  during  the  early  months  of  1861  was  diver 
sified  by  another  and  more  striking  incident,  the  Greeley- 
Evarts  contest  for  the  United  States  senatorship.  Greeley's 
enemies  loved  to  twit  him  on  the  score  of  his  desire  for  office; 
and  that  he  really  had  a  hankering  for  it  at  various  times 
can  scarcely  be  doubted.  But  the  battle  in  which  the  Phil 
osopher  of  Spruce  Street  engaged  on  this  occasion  involved 

1  Herald,  April  5. 


128       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [328 

more  than  mere  personal  ambition.  It  was  part  of  a  series 
of  operations  for  the  control  of  the  party  in  the  State,  and 
more  than  that,  for  an  influential  position  in  shaping  the 
policy  and  the  distribution  of  patronage  of  the  incoming  na 
tional  administration.  This  struggle  began  at  Springfield 
soon  after  the  election  of  Lincoln.  Both  Weed  and  Greeley 
visited  the  President-elect.1  William  Cullen  Bryant  had 
already  written  to  Lincoln  in  order  to  counteract  any  influ 
ence  which  Weed  might  attempt  to  exert  with  regard  to 
patronage,  the  cabinet,  or  the  compromise  policy  advocated 
in  Weed's  paper.2  Other  anti-Weed  men,  apparently,  sought 
by  personal  visits  and  by  telegrams  to  oppose  any  efforts  of 
Weed  to  control  New  York  appointments.3  As  for  Weed's 
plan  for  a  compromise,  Lincoln  was  firmly  set  against  any 
such  surrender,  and  Greeley  announced  this  with  satisfaction 
in  the  Tribune.  With  regard  to  the  offices,  Lincoln  on  ten 
dering  Seward  the  secretaryship  of  state  accompanied  the 
offer  with  a  distinct  notice  that  in  dispensing  the  patronage, 
his  maxim  would  be  "  Justice  to  all."  4  To  Bryant,  Lincoln 
wrote  at  the  end  of  December,  1860,  a  reassuring  letter, 
promising  "  to  deal  fairly  with  all  men  and  all  shades  of 
opinion  among  our  friends."5  The  same  determination 
was  made  known  to  Weed.6 

The  warfare  over  the  cabinet  started  early  and  continued 
almost  to  the  inauguration.  Bryant  immediately  after  the 
election  urged  Lincoln  to  appoint  Chase  secretary  of  state.7 

1  Weed's  Autobiography,  p.  613;  Herald,  Dec.  25,  1860;  Jan.  29,  1861. 
'Lincoln's  Works  (Gettysburg  Ed.),  vi,  p.  89. 

3  Weed's  Autobiography,  p.  613. 

4  Lincoln's  Works,  vi,  p.  77. 

5  Lincoln's  Works,  vi,  p.  89. 
6 Lincoln's  Works,  vi,  p.  105. 
7  Godwin's  Bryant,  ii,  p.  150. 


329]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR 

At  the  end  of  November,  there  was  held  in  New  York  City 
a  conference  of  prominent  New  York  Republicans,  mostly 
former  Barnburners,  the  objects  apparently  being  to  further 
Chase's  chances  and  to  discuss  the  subject  of  a  New  York 
appointment  to  the  cabinet.  Among  those  present  were 
Lieutenant-Governor  Campbell,  David  Dudley  Field,  Charles 
A.  Dana,  William  Curtis  Noyes,  George  Opdyke,  Hiram 
Barney,  H.  B.  Stanton,  Parke  Godwin,  and  Thomas  B. 
Carroll.  This  conference  designated  a  committee  to  work 
for  the  ends  mentioned  above,  and  the  committee  subse 
quently  held  a  consultation  at  Albany.1  At  this  time,  it  was 
thought  that  Seward  would  not  accept  a  cabinet  office,  and 
so  we  find  the  anti-Weed  faction  in  New  York  discussing 
the  merits  of  Greeley,  Field,  Opdyke,  Wadsworth,  and 
Noyes.2  Greeley,  however,  was  reported  as  having  said  that 
he  was  "  out  of  the  way  for  any  such  post."  3  Wrhen  his 
name  was  suggested  for  the  postmaster-generalship,  he  au 
thorized  Colfax  "  to  convey  to  the  President-elect  his  de 
cided  veto  on  that  selection."  4  Upon  being  twitted  with  his 
supposed  ambition  for  this  office  by  Weed's  paper,  Greeley 
replied  with  a  just  pride:  "  Even  the  Evening  Journal  will 
not  say  that  it  would  have  been  presumptuous  in  the  Editor 
aforesaid  to  have  aspired  to  office  at  the  hands  of  the  new 
President.  The  fact  [is]  that  he  did  not  seek  any  such 
office.  .  .  ."5 

The  anti-Weed  men  received  a  severe  blow  when  in  Janu 
ary  it  was  announced  that  Seward  would  be  secretary  of 
state.  They  accordingly  set  about  to  get  a  balance  to 
Seward  in  the  shape  of  Chase.  Thus  Bryant  wrote  to  Lin- 

1H.  B.  Stanton  to  Chase,  in  Diary  and  Correspondence  of  S.  P. 
Chase,  American  Historical  Association  Report  for  1902,  ii,  pp.  485,  487. 


4  Tribune,  Mar.  13.  *  Ibid. 


NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [330 

coin,  January  2ist,  urging  the  need  of  Chase's  presence  in 
the  cabinet  "  as  a  counterpoise  to  the  one  who  joins  to  com 
manding  talents  a  flexible  and  indulgent  temper  of  mind 
and  unsafe  associations."  l     Both  Weed  and  Greeley  were 
active  in  the  struggle  which  toward  the  end  of  February 
raged  around  the  question  of  Chase's  appointment.2     Both 
went  to  Washington  in  connection  with  this  matter.  Greeley 
in  the  Tribune  accused  Weed  of  opposing  Chase's  entrance 
into  the  cabinet  "  with  incomparable  virulence,   declaring 
that  if  he  was  appointed,  the  Union  would  certainly  be  de 
stroyed."  3    Friends  of  Seward  informed  Lincoln  on  March 
2d,  that  Seward  would  not  serve  with  Chase.4     Weed,  if  a 
later  report  may  be  believed,  came  away  enraged  because  he 
failed  to  get  Lincoln  to  omit  Chase's  name,  declaring  that 
"  Mr.  Chase  had  been  placed  in  the  cabinet  to  control  the 
patronage  and  appointments  in  the  city  and  State  of  New 
York,  to  prevent  Governor  Seward  from  controlling  the  ap 
pointments,  and  to  deprive  him  [Weed]  of  all  power  and 
influence."  5     Seward  himself  wrote  to  Lincoln  desiring  to 
withdraw  his  acceptance  of  the  state  department.6     What 
ever  Lincoln's  motives  in  retaining  Chase  might  have  been, 
the  contest  ended,  so  far  as  the  rival  New  York  factions 
were  concerned,  in  a  draw. 

The  selection  of  Seward,  however,  left  a  vacancy  in  the 
United  States  Senate  from  New  York,  and  the  senatorship 

Godwin's  Bryant,  ii,  p.  151. 

*  Herald,  Feb.  26,  27  (Washington  dispatches);  "Diary  of  a  Public 
Man,"  North  American  Review,  cxxix,  p.  263. 

8  Tribune,  Mar.  7. 

Bancroft's  Seward,  ii,  p.  42;  "Diary  of  a  Public  Man,"  'North 
American  Review,  cxxix,  p.  271. 

5  Hart's  Chase,  pp.  205,  206. 

6  Bancroft's  Seward,  ii,  p.  42;  Lincoln's  Works,  vi,  p.  185. 


331]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  131 

would  offer  a  very  good  vantage-ground  both  for  influencing 
the  policy  of  the  new  administration  and  for  getting  a  share 
of  the  patronage.  The  contest  for  the  speakership  of  the 
New  York  Assembly  had  shown  that  Greeley  had  a  numer 
ous  following  in  the  Legislature,  and  accordingly  a  good 
chance  of  an  election  to  the  United  States  Senate.  As  soon, 
then,  as  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  announced  that  Seward 
would  be  secretary  of  state,  Greeley's  friends  began  to  work 
for  his  election  as  Seward's  successor.1  Weed  supported 
from  the  first  William  M.  Evarts,  though  Raymond  and 
Webb  were  mentioned.2  Evarts  was  already  a  leader  of  the 
New  York  bar,  although  the  part  of  his  career  which  made 
him  a  national  figure  came  after  the  war.  But  his  argu 
ment  in  the  celebrated  Lemmon  case  3  had  attracted  wide 
attention.  Though  better  known  at  this  time  in  his  profes 
sion  than  among  politicians,  he  had  acquired  some  promi 
nence  in  the  latter  field  as  chairman  of  the  New  York  dele 
gation  at  the  Republican  National  Convention  of  1860  and 
as  one  of  the  principal  Seward  men  in  that  assemblage.  A 
third  candidate  was  Ira  Harris,  who  had  served  for  some 
thirteen  years  on  the  bench.  His  strength  from  the  begin 
ning  of  the  contest  consisted  in  a  band  of  firm  adherents, 
relatively  few  in  number  but  holding  the  balance  of  power. 

The  struggle  was  in  part  one  which  involved  principle. 
Some  legislators  who  ordinarily  followed  the  lead  of  Weed 
would  not  support  for  the  senatorship  a  candidate  who 
favored  compromise  on  the  lines  advocated  by  Weed. 
Evarts'  speech  upon  the  fugitive  slave  law  at  Castle  Garden 
was  brought  up  against  him;  and  to  counteract  this  move, 
his  friends  found  it  advisable  to  circulate  pamphlets  con- 

1  He* aid,  Jan.  15. 

2 Herald,  Jan.  4,  23. 

'For  this,  see  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  323,  note. 


YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [332 

taining  his  argument  in  the  Lemmon  slave  case  and  his 
speech  at  the  Broadway  Tabernacle.1  On  the  other  hand, 
Weed  was  said  to  have  made  much  use  of  Greeley's  previous 
admission  of  the  right  of  withdrawal  from  the  Union.2  And 
yet,  personality  complicated  the  situation,  producing  strange 
inconsistencies.  At  one  time  during  the  preliminary  can 
vass,  Weed  and  his  followers  seemed  about  to  drop  Evarts 
for  a  stronger  candidate,  but  this  plan  was  given  up.3  A 
number  of  legislators  were  reported  as  declaring  that  they 
would  not  vote  for  Greeley  either  in  or  out  of  the  caucus.4 
Against  him  it  was  urged  that  his  presence  in  the  Senate 
would  so  irritate  the  South  as  to  aid  in  dissolving  the 
Union.5  Men  who  had  opposed  Weed's  conciliatory  policy 
now  supported  his  candidate  for  senator;  and  some  who 
had  favored  the  Robinson  resolutions  now  preferred 
Greeley  who  was  totally  opposed  to  compromise. 

By  the  last  week  in  January,  the  battle  became  animated.6 
The  contest  was  one  of  the  keenest  in  the  political  history  of 
the  State.  David  Dudley  Field  came  up  to  Albany  to  work 
for  Greeley.  Evarts  came  in  person,  while  Harris  and  Weed 
were  already  on  the  scene  of  action.  Weed  summoned  his 
followers  from  all  over  the  State  to  influence  the  legislators 
from  their  respective  districts,  and  most  of  the  Republican 
State  Committee  were  at  Albany  in  the  interests  of  Weed's 
man. 

Mr.  Evarts  was  surrounded  by  a  band  of  the  most  skilful  and 

1  Herald,  Jan.  28;   Tribune,  Feb.  4. 

*  "  Diary  of  a  Public  Man,"  North  American  Review,  cxxix,  p.  136; 
Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States,  iii,  p.  142. 

3  Tribune,  Feb.  4;  Herald.  Feb.  i,  5- 

4  Herald,  Jan.  23. 

^Tribune,  Feb.  4.  6 Herald,  Jan.  26,  28. 


333]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  133 

experienced,  the  most  thoroughly  drilled  and  compacted  corps 
of  political  managers  in  the  country.  Mr.  Weed,  a  host  in 
himself,  led  the  cohort,  flanked  and  followed  by  Comptroller 
Haws,  Moses  H.  Grinnell,  Simeon  Draper,  Oakey  Hall,  .  .  . 
and  other  eminent  gentlemen  from  New  York  City;  a  large 
moiety  of  the  State  officers  at  Albany;  Hollis  White,  A.  B. 
Dickinson,  E.  B.  Leavenworth,  O.  B.  Matteson,  and  a  crowd 
of  men  of  like  distinction  from  the  Center,  North  and  West; 
while  a  cloud  of  Harbor-Masters,  Loan  Commissioners,  Canal 
Collectors,  Canal  Appraisers  and  other  officials  .  .  .  covered  the 
field  as  light  dragoons,  skirmishers  and  zouaves.  It  is  estimated 
that  the  whole  number  of  men  collected  here  from  all  parts  of 
the  State  by  the  managers  of  Mr.  Evarts  for  the  purpose  of  in 
fluencing,  dragooning,  and  controlling  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  in  his  behalf  during  the  past  week  has  not  been 
less  than  one  thousand.  .  .  .  Never  were  the  halls  and  parlors 
of  the  hotels,  or  the  lobbies  of  the  Legislature,  thronged  with 
such  a  feverish  and  intense  activity.1 

Both  sides  apparently  tried  to  obtain  the  assistance  of  Lin 
coln.  According  to  Weed,  it  was  given  out  that  the  Presi 
dent-elect  favored  Greeley.  Moreover,  the  editor  of  the 
Evening  Journal  wrote  to  Lincoln  that  representations  were 
being  made  that  he  favored  Greeley  and  that  a  certain  fol 
lower  of  the  latter  claimed  to  be  authorized  to  dispense  the 
New  York  federal  patronage.  Lincoln's  reply  came  too  late 
to  be  used  in  the  contest.  In  it,  he  not  only  denied  abso 
lutely  any  interference,  but  stated  that  Weed  was  accused  of 
doing  the  same  thing  of  which  he  complained.  Seward,  too, 
was  besought  by  some  Evarts  men  to  secure  Lincoln's  in- 

1  Quoted  from  the  Tribune,  Feb.  4;  confirmed  by  the  Herald  account. 
"The  anti- Greeley  politicians  have  been  summoned  from  every  part  of 
the  State  to  take  care  of  their  members  and  convince  them  that  they 
must  not  vote  for  Greeley.  .  .  .  Most  of  the  State  Central  Committee 
are  here  working  against  Greeley"  (Herald,  Jan.  31;  also  Feb.  5). 


r  u       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [334 

terposition  in  behalf  of  Evarts;  but  in  a  letter  to  Weed, 
Seward  declined  to  attempt  that.1 

At  last,  the  day  of  the  caucus,  February  2d,  came.     But 
one  Republican  legislator  was  absent.     The  galleries  of  the 
assembly  chamber,  where  the  caucus  was  held,  could  not 
hold  the  crowds  of  spectators;  and  despite  repeated  efforts 
to  clear  the  floor,  they  swarmed  into  that  space  as  well  as 
into  the  lobbies  and  retiring  rooms.     Weed  was  ensconced 
in  the  governor's  room.     As  aids  hasten  to  the  general's 
tent,  messengers  came  thither  from  time  to  time  with  tid 
ings  of  how  the  battle  went.    On  the  first  ballot,  out  of  115 
votes,   Evarts  had   42,   Greeley  40,    Harris   20. 2     On  the 
second  ballot,  Evarts  lost  three,  while  Greeley  and  Harris 
each  gained  two.     And  so  it  continued  a  neck  and  neck  race 
with  Greeley  in  the  lead,  until  the  eighth  ballot  resulted  in 
Greeley  receiving  47  votes  (a  gain  of  five  over  the  preceding 
ballot),  and  Evarts  39.     From  the  very  first,  Harris  had 
been  the  dark  horse.     It  was  predicted  that  he  held  the  bal 
ance  of  power,  and  so  it  turned  out.     During  the  voting, 
Weed  in  vain  tried  to  induce  Harris's  managers  to  withdraw 
him,  but  they  stood  firm.     The  eighth  ballot  showed  which 
way  the  contest  was  going.     Now,  it  must  be  anything  to 
beat  Greeley.     "  Little  John  brought  back  to  the  caucus  the 
terrible  command;"  and  so,  the  Evarts  men  on  the  ninth 
ballot  began  going  over  to  Harris,  with  the  result  that  the 
latter  received  49  votes,  Greeley  46,  and  Evarts  I2.3     On 
the  tenth  and  last  ballot,  60  votes  were  cast  for  Harris, 
sufficient  to  make  him  the  nominee  of  the  caucus;  49  stl11 

1  Barnes'  Memoir  of   Weed,  pp.   322-24,  including  letters    of  David 
Davis  to  Weed,  Seward  to  Weed,  and  Lincoln  to  Weed. 

2  Scattering,  13. 
*  Scattering,  7. 


335]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  ^5 

clung  to  Greeley,  while  Evarts  had  but  2.     Thereupon,  the 
nomination  was  made  unanimous.1 

Both  sides  claimed  the  victory.  For  many  who  had  sup 
ported  Greeley,  it  was  indeed  such ;  for  the  Weed  slate  had 
been  broken.  "  The  one-man  power  at  the  State  Capital 
is  overthrown,"  wrote  the  Tribune  correspondent.  "  It  was 
a  conflict  which  was  to  determine  whether  a  dynasty  was  to 
stand  ...  or  be  overthrown  or  annihilated.  Fully  appre 
ciating  the  fact,  not  Richard  at  Bosworth  Field,  Charles  at 
Naseby,  nor  Napoleon  at  Waterloo,  made  a  more  desperate 
fight  for  empire  than  did  the  one-man  power  at  Albany  to 
retain  the  sceptre  it  has  wielded  for  so  many  years.  ...  Its 
downfall  here,  to-night  .  .  .  was  most  signal  and  com 
plete."  On  the  other  hand,  the  followers  of  Weed  looked 
with  satisfaction  at  the  fact  that  at  any  rate  Greeley  had 
been  defeated.  The  result  was  in  truth  a  compromise,  in 
which  the  two  leaders  of  the  respective  factions  got  the  worst 
of  it.  As  for  Weed,  the  contest  marked  the  extent  of  the  de 
cline  of  his  power.  Greeley  failed  to  receive  the  rewards  that 
ordinarily  make  politics  an  attraction  to  a  high-minded  man, 
.and  his  failure  was  pathetic.  Assuredly  if  he  had  been 
elected  to  the  Senate,  he  would  have  been  an  ornament  to 
that  body.  However,  in  view  of  the  embarrassment  which 
he  later  caused  to  the  Lincoln  administration  through  the 
columns  of  the  Tribune,  it  was  perhaps  well  that  he  did  not 
succeed  in  attaining  a  position  where  he  might  have  done 
still  more  mischief. 

1  Tribune,  Feb.  4;  Herald,  Feb.  3;  Argus,  Feb.  4;  Barnes'  Memoir 
of  Weed,  pp.  324-5.  In  the  Democratic  caucus,  the  first  ballot  resulted  in 
F.  B.  Spinola  receiving  13  votes,  Horatio  Seymour  14,  Lyman  Tremain 
5,  scattering  6.  On  the  second  ballot,  Seymour  was  chosen  as  the 
nominee,  receiving  21  votes  to  16  for  Spinola  and  i  for  Samuel  Nelson 
(Argus,  Feb.  5)- 

*  Tribune,  Feb.  4. 


136       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [336 

The  election  of  Senator  Harris  brought  scarcely  a  truce 
in  the  struggle  between  the  New  York  Republican  factions. 
During  the  following  month,  the  Albany  Evening  Journal 
kept  up  a  continuous  attack  on  the  Tribune  directed  against 
the  latter's  stand  on  national  questions,1  while  the  Tribune 
rebuked  the  Albany  Journal  for  its  lack  of  "  decency  "  and 
its  "  acrimonious  warfare  of  personalities."  Then,  atten 
tion  was  directed  to  the  engrossing  subject  of  the  appoint 
ments  of  the  incoming  administration.  The  Republican 
party  for  the  first  time  in  its  history  was  to  possess  the  na 
tional  patronage,  and  the  share  of  New  York  would  be  no 
mean  one.  The  chief  office  in  this  State  at  the  President's 
disposal  was  the  collectorship  of  the  port  of  New  York. 
Soon  after  his  election,  Lincoln  made  known  his  intention 
of  giving  this  post  to  Hiram  Barney.2  This  was  a  personal 
appointment,  but  it  was  a  big  victory  for  the  anti-Weed 
wing;  for  Barney,  though  not  recently  engaged  in  politics, 
was  a  radical  and  a  friend  of  Chase.3  The  New  York  cus 
tom-house  had  long  played  an  important  part  in  national 
and  state  politics.  The  patronage  under  Barney's  control 
was  very  large.  He  was  for  days  deluged  with  applica 
tions  for  places,  the  custom-house  was  thronged  with  eager 
seekers  for  positions,  and  many  persons  visited  the  rotunda 
merely  to  witness  this  spectacle.4  Subordinate  places  to  the 
collectorship  were  given  to  two  other  prominent  New  York 

}E.  g.,  Feb.  5,  8,  9,  14, 16,  23,  25.  On  some  days  there  were  as  many 
as  three  or  four  editorials  or  editorial  paragraphs  directed  against  the 
Tribune. 

2  Weed's  Autobiography,  p.  612. 

3Schucker's  Chase,  p.  477;  Hart's  Chase,  p.  217. 

4 Herald,  April  9,  10,  u.  Barney  did  not  make  removals  fast  enough 
to  please  some,  and  his  own  removal  was  demanded  by  both  New  York 
City  and  Brooklyn  Republicans  {Herald,  June  10:  Tribune,  Sept.  5, 
Oct.  21). 


337]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  137 

radicals,  Rufus  Andrews  (appointed  surveyor  of  the  port)) 
and  Henry  B.  Stanton.  The  possession  of  the  custom-house 
by  their  opponents  was  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  the  Seward- 
Weed  faction  until  the  spring  of  I864.1 

It  was  not  until  the  middle  and  latter  part  of  March  that 
the  New  York  appointments  were  made;  and  in  the  mean 
time,  the  contest  was  a  warm  one.  Both  Weed  and  Greeley 
again  journeyed  to  Washington.2  Aside  from  the  custom 
house,  the  Seward-Weed  wing  seems  to  have  gotten  the 
better  share  of  the  spoils,  notwithstanding  Lincoln's  ex 
pressed  determination  to  remain  impartial  with  regard  to 
the  two  New  York  factions.3  The  interests  of  the  many 
friends  of  Seward  in  New  York  State  were  apparently  better 
protected  by  the  latter  than  were  those  of  his  opponents  by 
Chase.  It  was  not  without  reason  that  the  anti-Seward 
men  feared  in  this  matter  "  the  superior  tact  and  pertinacity 
of  Mr.  Seward  and  of  Mr.  Thurlow  Weed,"  Chase's  pres 
ence  notwithstanding.4  Gideon  Welles  tells  us  that  Seward 

was  vigilant  and  tenacious  in  dispensing  the  patronage  of  the 

1  The  number  of  employees  in  the  custom-house  in  1864  was  estimated 
by  Surveyor  Andrews  as  1200.     The  usual  assessment  on  the  employees' 
salaries  for  political  purposes  was  two  per  cent  (Testimony  of  Andrews 
in  Weed-Opdyke  suit,  Herald,  Dec.  30,  1864). 

2  Herald,  Mar.  25,  26.     Lincoln's  oft-quoted  letter  regarding  the  ap 
pointment  of  Christopher  Adams  shows  the  intense  rivalry  between 
Weed  and  Greeley  in  the  matter  of  appointments  (Lincoln's  Works,  vi, 
p.  268).      '  .  .  .  almost  every  place  in  New  York  was  hotly  contested 
between  the  Weed  and  anti-Weed  factions"  (Hart's  Chase,  p.  218). 

*Ante.  The  Herald,  March  15  (Washington  dispatch)  said:  "Mr. 
Dana  of  the  New  York  Tribune  has  had  an  interview  with  the  Presi 
dent,  and  irritated  by  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Littlejohn  as  consul  to 
Liverpool,  demanded  to  know  about  the  New  York  appointments. 
The  President  told  Mr.  Dana  very  plainly  that  he  should  not  recognise 
the  existing  quarrel  in  New  York  State."  See  also  Dana's  Recollec 
tions  of  the  Civil  War,  p.  2. 

4  Dana's  Recollections,  p.  2. 


138       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [338 

State  Department,  often  without  consulting  others.  On  this 
point  of  selecting  officials,  or  being  consulted  in  regard  to  ap 
pointments  which  came  within  the  purview  of  his  department, 
no  man  was  more  sensitive  than  Mr.  Seward,  though  himself 
not  always  regardful  of  what  in  this  respect  was  due  to  others.1 

We  have  the  testimony  of  John  A.  Kasson,  then  first  as 
sistant  postmaster-general,  that  his  chief,  Montgomery  Blair, 
frequently  expressed  dissatisfaction  with  Seward's  inter 
ference  with  appointments  in  the  post  office  department.2 
At. the  very  beginning  of  the  administration,  Seward  at 
tempted  to  settle  in  Chase's  absence  the  list  of  New  York 
appointments  and  was  unwilling  that  Chase  should  be  con 
sulted  in  the  matter.3  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  Chase  in 
March,  1861,  writing  to  Seward:  "The  appraisership  at 
New  York  is  vacant.  Which  of  the  two  applicants  do  you 
prefer?"4  In  August,  1862,  Chase  wrote  that  he  "spent 
much  time  with  Weed  over  New  York  appointments,"  5  and 
he  recorded  Weed's  satisfaction  with  the  decisions  in  these 
matters.0  Moreover,  Chase  apparently  had  a  high  standard 
which  interfered  with  a  merely  political  use  of  the  pat 
ronage.7  Very  likely,  he  never  felt  the  degree  of  interest 
in  New  York  politics  which  Seward  naturally  did. 

1  Welles'  Lincoln  and  Seward,  p.  71.  Writing  of  appointments  abroad, 
C.  R.  Fish,  on  the  basis  of  letters  in  the  Chase  MSS,  says,  "Seward's 
influence  was  probably  felt  in  most  of  the  more  important  selections" 
(American  Historical  Review,  viii,  p.  60). 

3  Bancroft's  Seward,  ii,  p.  357- 

3  Welles'  Lincoln  and  Seward,  pp.  72-3. 

4  Bancroft' s  Seward,  ii,  p.  356. 

6  Diary  and  Correspondence  of  S.  P.  Chase,  American  Historical  As 
sociation  Report  for  2902,  ii,  p.  62. 

*Ibid.,  ii,  pp.  79,  83. 

7Hart's  Chase,  p.  311;  C.  R.  Fish,  "  Lincoln  and  the  Patronage  " 
(American  Historical  Review,  viii,  p.6i). 


339]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  139 

The  late  Democratic  convention  had  given  due  expres 
sion  to  the  sentiments  of  the  party  in  this  State.  The  leaders 
had  pointed  out  the  path  to  be  taken.  The  effect  was  seen 
in  the  debates  in  the  Legislature  during  the  first  part  of 
February  on  a  bill  appropriating  five  hundred  thousand  dol 
lars  to  equip  the  militia  of  the  State.  The  Democratic  con 
vention  call  had  indicated  such  proposed  legislation  as  a 
proper  field  for  Democratic  opposition.  The  Argus  edi 
torially  said :  "  The  State  of  New  York  is  not  in  need  of  de 
fence.  It  fears  no  enemies  from  abroad,  is  threatened  with 
no  invasion.  The  half-million  job,  which  the  Journal  and 
the  lobby  are  getting  up,  has  the  invasion  of  sister  States  for 
its  object,  not  the  defence  of  New  York."  x  A  month  and  a 
half  after  South  Carolina  had  passed  the  ordinance  of  se 
cession — an  interval  during  which  the  South  was  busily 
engaged  in  arming — this  most  necessary  measure  was  op 
posed  with  all  but  unanimity  by  the  Democratic  members 
of  the  Legislature.  In  the  Senate,  a  number  of  Democrats 
assailed  the  bill.2  Only  one  Democrat,  J.  McLeod  Murphy, 
spoke  in  its  favor,  declaring  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  a 
party  measure,  and  that  if  no  other  Democrat  voted  for  it, 
he  would.  So  it  turned  out.  The  bill  passed,  19  to  6,  the 
ayes  being  all  Republicans  except  Murphy,  and  the  nays  all 
Democrats.3  Subsequently,  Senator  Murphy  became  a 
prominent  War  Democrat  and  served  as  colonel  at  the  front. 
In  the  Assembly,  the  line-up  on  the  bill  was  a  strictly  party 
one,  the  Republicans  supporting  the  measure  and  the  Demo 
crats  opposing  it.  Mr.  Kernan,  the  Democratic  leader  on 
the  floor,  asserted  that  there  was  no  need  for  so  great  an 
expenditure;  there  was  no  danger  of  domestic  insurrec- 

1  Argus,  Jan,  28;  similar  editorials,  Jan.  30,  Feb.  8,  n,  12. 
1  Herald,  Jan.  30,  Feb.  8;  Argus,  Jan.  30,  Feb.  4,  8. 
'Senate  Journal,  1861,  p.  151. 


140       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [340 

tion  or  of  invasion,  and  there  would  be  no  use  for  troops 
at  Washington  or  anywhere  else;  the  true  purpose  of  the 
bill  was  to  provide  jobs  for  a  few  contractors.1  The  Demo 
crats  succeeded  in  delaying  for  the  time  action  on  the 
bill.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Republicans  opposed  an  at 
tempt  in  the  Senate  to  have  considered  a  bill  providing  for 
the  submission  of  the  Crittenden  amendments  to  the  peo 
ple,  and  finally  buried  the  measure  by  reference  to  a  com 
mittee.2 

During  the  rest  of  that  month  and  March,  the  Legisla 
ture  proceeded  with  its  ordinary  business.  There  were  some 
skirmishes  between  the  Republicans  and  the  Democrats  on 
such  topics  as  the  demands  of  the  South,  the  Governor's  mes 
sage,  the  Kansas  Relief  Bill,  and  the  Chicago  platform ; 3 
but  there  was  a  lull  in  the  secession  movement  then,  a  good 
part  of  the  hundred  days'  session  provided  for  in  the  state 
constitution  had  been  used  up,  and  committees  were  by  that 
time  ready  to  report.  So,  for  a  while,  Broadway  railroad 
schemes,  canal  extensions,  and  the  usual  variety  of  proposed 
legislation  received  most  of  the  attention  of  the  members. 

On  the  loth  of  April,  however,  the  bill  appropriating  half 
a  million  to  equip  the  militia  was  brought  up.  With  the 
aid  of  many  Republicans,  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Robinson,  providing  that  no  money  appropriated  should 
be  used  unless  it  became  actually  necessary  to  call  out  the 
militia  of  the  State,  was  adopted  and  the  bill  recommitted.4 
But  two  days  later,  after  the  arrival  of  the  news  of  the 
firing  on  Fort  Sumter,  a  bill  providing  for  a  similar  object, 

1  Argus,  Feb.  9;  Herald,  Feb.  9. 

8  Argus,  Jan.  31;  Herald,  Jan.  31;  Senate  Journal,  2861,  pp.  77,  115. 

*  Argus,  Mar.  i,  2,  22;  Herald,  Mar.  2;  Tribune,  Feb.  20. 

4  Ayes,  78,  noes,  28;  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  904. 


341]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  141 

already  passed  by  the  Senate,  was  reported  in  the  Assembly 
and  passed  by  a  vote  of  78  to  25.*  The  days  immediately 
following  the  I4th  of  April  saw  a  patriotic  rising  of  the 
masses,  and  nowhere  was  the  revolution  more  remarkable 
than  in  New  York.  A  conference  of  the  important  state 
officials  and  the  military  and  financial  committees  of  both 
houses  of  the  Legislature  was  immediately  held  at  the  Gov 
ernor's  mansion.  A  committee  of  those  present  drew  up  a 
bill  authorizing  the  Governor  to  enroll  for  two  years  thirty 
thousand  volunteers,  appropriating  three  million  dollars, 
and  providing  a  tax  for  these  purposes.2  The  bill  was 
printed  on  the  night  of  the  I4th;  and  on  the  next  day,  with 
a  provision  establishing  a  state  military  board  composed 
of  the  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  secretary  of  state, 
comptroller,  and  attorney-general,  the  measure  was  intro 
duced,  put  through  all  stages,  and  passed  in  both  houses.3 

The  attitude  of  the  Democratic  members,  who  but  re 
cently  had  opposed  with  practical  unanimity  the  five  hun 
dred  thousand  dollars  appropriation,  showed  how  the  news 
of  Sumter's  fall  broke  down  party  lines,  shattered  the 
united  front  of  the  Democracy,  and  overthrew  the  platform 
formulated  by  the  late  Democratic  convention.  Some  of 
the  legislators  of  that  party  tried  to  have  a  caucus  called, 
so  as  to  decide  upon  a  line  of  party  action  in  this  emergency. 
But  a  caucus  could  not  be  gotten  together.4  Few  on  this 
occasion  resisted  the  tidal  wave  of  patriotism.  In  the  As- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  969.  The  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a 
strictly  party  vote. 

Article  by  J.  Meredith  Read  (Governor  Morgan's  adjutant-gen 
eral)  in  the  Magazine  of  American  History,  xiv,  p.  50. 

5  Read's  article,  Magazine  of  American  History,  xiv,  p.  51 ;  Assembly 
Journal,  1861,  pp.  1025,  1026;  Senate  Journal,  1861,  pp.  607,  608,  609. 

4  Herald,  April  16. 


I42       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [342 

sembly,  one  Democrat  said  that  he  voted  for  the  bill  not  as 
a  Democrat  but  as  an  individual  loving  his  country;  yet, 
he  continued,  his  vote  was  not  for  a  moment  to  be  con 
strued  as  an  endorsement  of  the  Republican  party;  to  its 
refusal  to  compromise  was  charged  the  unhappy  situation 
of  the  country's  affairs ;  nevertheless,  "  the  national  capital 
was  in  danger  and  it  was  the  hour  for  every  true  lover  of 
his  country  to  rally  to  its  defence.  ..."  Another  Demo 
crat  said :  "  It  is  not  now  for  me  to  say  whether  the  na 
tional  administration  be  right  or  wrong."  Still  another, 
Fulton  of  Saratoga  County,  declared  that  he  should  fear 
to  return  home  if  he  did  not  vote  for  the  bill,  lest  the  pa 
triots  buried  there  would  rise  up  against  him.  A  Demo 
cratic  member  from  Suffolk  knew  of  no  party  in  this  issue. 
Only  two  Democrats  spoke  against  the  measure  as  being 
unconstitutional,  unnecessary,  and  unfavorable  to  concilia 
tion.1  The  bill  passed  102  to  6,  the  nays  being  given  by 
Democrats  from  New  York  City.2  In  the  Senate,  Mr. 
Spinola  charged  the  Republican  party  with  being  respon 
sible  for  the  crisis,  but  said  that  it  was  "  no  time  to 
bandy  words  "  and  accordingly  he  favored  the  bill.  An 
other  Democrat,  Colvin,  regretted  the  utterance  of  such 
remarks  in  view  of  the  subject.  ;'  This  was  no  time  to  talk 
of  party.  He  should  not  stop  to  consider  whether  this  or 
that  party  was  to  blame."  In  all,  three  senators  of  each 
side  spoke  for  the  bill,  which  was  then  passed  with  but  two 
votes  against  it.3  On  the  next  day,  the  bill  was  signed  by 

1  Argus,  April  16;  Herald,  April  16;  Tribune,  April  16.  The  nays 
were  cast  by  Cozans,  Hardy,  Kenny,  Varian,  Walsh,  and  Young. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  1861,  p.  1026. 

8  Senate  Journal,  1861,  p.  609;  Herald,  April  16;  Argus,  April  17; 
article  by  J.  Meredith  Read,  Magazine  of  American  History,  xiv,  p.  52 
(which  erroneously  gives  the  nays  as  three).  The  nays  were  Lawrence 
(Dem.  of  Queens)  and  Gardiner  (Dem.  of  Kings). 


343]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR  143 

the  Governor.1  Thus  within  three  days,  New  York  gave  its 
official  answer — and  a  significant  one  too — to  South  Caro 
lina. 

The  action  of  the  state  government  was  sustained  by  the 
people.  The  series  of  great  meetings  held  throughout  the 
State  testified  to  the  fact  that,  for  a  while  at  least,  party 
strife  and  recrimination  were  stilled.  In  the  days  im 
mediately  following  the  firing  upon  Fort  Sumter  thous 
ands  of  Democrats,  who  subsequently  refused  to  lay 
aside  their  party,  united  with  the  Republicans  in  a 
noble  demonstration  in  support  of  the  administration. 
Perhaps  some  politicians  were  insincere  and  were  swept 
along.  The  masses,  however,  were  actuated  by  patriotic 
motives.  In  these  meetings,  Republicans,  Douglas  Demo 
crats,  Breckinridge  Democrats,  Tammany  men,  Mozart 
men,  and  Bell-Everettites  all  joined.  The  prevailing  sen 
timent  was  expressed  by  ex-President  Fillmore,  who  said 
at  the  Buffalo  meeting :  "  The  government  calls  for  aid  and 
we  must  give  it.  It  is  no  time  now  to  inquire  by  whose 
fault  or  folly  this  state  of  things  has  been  produced."  2 

At  Albany,  Erastus  Corning,  Regency  leader  and  Demo 
cratic  congressman,  presided  over  a  great  meeting  called 
by  the  Democratic  committee.3  There,  Lyman  Tremain, 
who  but  a  few  months  before  had  expressed  himself  in  so 
violent  terms  against  coercion,  as  well  as  others  pledged  the 
Democratic  party  to  stand  by  the  national  government  in 
preserving  the  Union;  and  these  utterances  received  the 
enthusiastic  approval  of  upwards  of  eight  thousand  per 
sons  present.4  At  Oswego,  men  of  all  parties  united  in 

1  Tribune,  April  17.  *  Herald,  April  17. 

8  Argus,  April  23.  *  Tribune,  April  23. 


144        NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [344 

passing  resolutions  which  approved  the  action  of  the  Presi 
dent  and  that  of  the  Legislature,  denounced  the  rebellion, 
and  declared  for  the  wiping  out  of  party  lines  during  such 
critical  times.1  At  Kingston,2  Troy,3  Auburn,4  Hudson,5 
Watertown,6  Canandaigua,7  Geneva,8  Dunkirk,9  and  Sche- 
nectady  10  the  citizens,  regardless  of  former  political  affilia 
tions,  participated  in  similar  demonstrations.  Rochester's 
meeting  of  like  character  resolved  to  sustain  the  gov 
ernment  at  any  cost.11  Side  by  side  with  Republicans, 
there  took  part  in  these  assemblages  prominent  Demo 
crats  like  Daniel  S.  Dickinson  at  the  Binghamton 
meeting,12  Francis  Kernan  at  Utica,13  ex-Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor  Church  at  Albion,14  and  Heman  J.  Redfield  at  Ba- 
tavia.15  From  all  over  the  State,  there  were  reported  great 
outpourings  of  men  of  all  parties,  exalted  non-partisan  sen 
timents,  and  tremendous  enthusiasm. 

The  most  imposing  demonstration  of  all  was  the  great 
Union  meeting  in  New  York  City.  Before  the  war, 
that  term  meant  a  pro-slavery,  anti-Republican  gather 
ing.  With  the  firing  on  Fort  Sumter,  the  significance  of  the 
expression  changed,  thereafter  denoting  a  patriotic  assem 
blage  for  the  purpose  of  pledging  support  to  the  govern 
ment  against  Southern  secessionists.  On  Monday,  the  I5th 
of  April,  a  number  of  prominent  gentlemen  held  a  pre 
liminary  conference.16  As  a  result  of  this  and  subsequent 

1  Herald,  April  19.  2 Herald,  April  19. 

*  Argus,  April  16.  ''Argus,  April  20. 

5  Argus,  April  20.  6  Argus,  April  26. 

7  Argus,  April  20.  *  Argus,  April  24. 

9  Argus,  April  21.  10  Argus,  April  22. 

"Herald,  April  19.  "Argus,  April  20. 

"Argus,  April  22.  "Argus,  April  24. 

"Argus,  April  27.  1G Herald,  April  17. 


345]  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR 

consultations,  the  citizens  "  without  regard  to  previous 
political  opinions  "  were  called  upon  to  assemble  at  Union 
Square  on  the  following  Saturday  at  three  o'clock,  "  to 
express  their  sentiment  in  the  present  crisis  in  our  national 
affairs  and  their  determination  to  uphold  the  government 
of  their  country  and  maintain  the  authority  of  its  consti 
tution  and  its  laws."  It  was  also  recommended  that  all 
places  of  business  be  closed  at  two  o'clock.  The  call  for 
this  meeting  was  signed  by  many  of  the  most  distinguished 
citizens  of  all  parties,  including  John  A.  Dix,  ex-Governor 
Hamilton  Fish,  Peter  Cooper,  George  Opdyke,  William  F. 
Havemeyer,  William  M.  Evarts,  Alexander  T.  Stewart, 
William  Earl  Dodge,  William  Curtis  Noyes,  John  Coch- 
rane,  William  B.  Astor,  August  Belmont,  Elijah  F.  Purdy, 
Greene  C.  Bronson,  Samuel  Sloan,  John  J.  Cisco,  A.  A. 
Low,  Moses  H.  Grinnell,  and  hundreds  of  others.1  The 
committee  on  resolutions  and  speakers,  with  John  A.  Dix 
— a  life-long  Democrat — at  its  head,  likewise  embraced  men 
of  all  parties.2 

On  the  appointed  day,  April  2Oth,  over  50,000  persons 
were  estimated  to  have  packed  Union  Square  and  the 
vicinity.  There  were  four  stands,  two  of  which  were  re 
spectively  presided  over  by  Dix  and  Fish.  The  non-par 
tisan  character  of  the  demonstration  was  further  shown  by 
the  list  of  vice-presidents.  In  addition  to  those  who  signed 
the  call,  the  roll  of  those  who  thus  lent  their  names  to  the 
meeting  included  James  T.  Brady,  Cornelius  Vanderbilt, 
Orestes  A.  Brownson,  George  Law,  Henry  J.  Raymond, 
Horace  Greeley,  Richard  O'Gorman,  Edwin  Croswell,  H. 
B.  Claflin,  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  David  Dudley  Field,  Peter 
Lorillard,  Erastus  Brooks,  Augustus  Schell,  John  T.  Hoff- 

1  Herald,  April  18,  19. 
1  Herald,  April  19. 


I46       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [346 

man,  dozens  of  others  prominent  in  politics,  business,  or  the 
professions,  and  even  Fernando  Wood.  The  last  mentioned 
made  a  very  patriotic  speech,  pledging  support  to  the  admin 
istration.  In  upholding  the  constitution,  the  Union,  the 
government,  the  laws  and  the  flag,  he  said, 

he  cared  not  what  past  political  associations  might  be  severed. 
He  was  willing  to  give  up  all  sympathies,  and,  if  they  pleased, 
all  errors  of  judgment  upon  all  national  questions.  .  .  .  He 
knew  no  party  now.  He  called  upon  every  man,  whatever  had 
been  his  sympathies,  to  make  one  grand  phalanx  in  this  con 
troversy,  to  proceed  ...  to  conquer  a  peace.1 

If  Wood  was  sincere  on  this  occasion,  it  must  have  been  a 
temporary  aberration.  It  is  perhaps  more  in  accord  with 
his  other  utterances,  both  before  and  after  this  occasion,  to 
attribute  his  speech  at  the  New  York  meeting  to  demagogy. 
The  finance  committee  appointed  at  this  great  demonstra 
tion  was  another  evidence  of  its  character,  being  composed 
of  twelve  Republicans  and  of  fourteen  of  those  who  had 
hitherto  acted  in  opposition  to  that  party.2  The  prevailing 
idea  of  the  speakers  was  that  of  ex-Governor  Fish 
who  said :  "  Thank  God,  I  look  now  upon  a  multitude  that 
knows  no  party  divisions — no  Whigs,  no  Democrats  or 
Republicans."  3 

1  Herald,  April  21,  24;  Tribune,  April  22.  The  Tribune  subsequently 
gave  the  following  explanation  of  Wood's  speech:  "When  the  great 
Union  meeting  in  Union  Square  was  about  to  be  held,  General  Dix  at 
the  head  of  a  committee,  invited  Wood  to  speak,  distinctly  informing 
him  that  no  semi-secession  sentiments  would  be  allowed  to  pass  his 
lips,  and  if  he  refused  to  speak  at  all  the  fact  would  be  marked  against 
him.  For  once  this  bold,  bad  man  cowered  before  the  fiat  of  an  aroused 
people"  (Tribune,  Nov.  29,  1861).  I  have  found  no  evidence  to  cor 
roborate  this. 

3  Herald,  April  21 .  8  Ibid. 


POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR 


147 


Meanwhile,  on  April  igth,  the  merchants  of  the  City  met 
in  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  resolved  unanimously  to 
uphold  the  national  authorities  and  to  urge  a  strict  block 
ade  of  all  ports  in  the  seceded  states;  $21,000  to  move 
troops  was  raised  in  ten  minutes;  and  a  committee  was 
designated  to  aid  in  procuring  the  immediate  subscription 
of  the  remaining  nine  million  dollars  of  the  government 
loan.1  On  the  22d,  Mayor  Wood  recommended  and  the 
Board  of  Aldermen  voted  a  million  dollars  for  the  defence 
of  the  government.2 

The  revolution  in  sentiment  was  indeed  remarkable.3  So 
it  seemed  to  the  New  Orleans  Picayune,  which  said  : 

We  are  unwilling  to  believe  the  telegraphic  reports  of  the  total 
apostacy  of  the  majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  who  have  ever  professed  to  be  the  friends  of  the  South, 
and  the  opponents  of  Black  Republicanism,  as  their  vote  in  the 
late  Presidential  contest  exhibited  .  .  .  the  change  is  certainly 
very  extraordinary.  What  has  become  of  the  Union  proces 
sion  of  the  bone  and  sinew  of  New  York  City,  which  turned 
out  seven  miles  in  length  in  opposition  to  the  Wide  Awakes? 
We  shall  wait  for  confirmation  before  we  are  willing  to  believe 
in  the  apostacy  of  New  York  City.* 

That  confirmation  soon  came.  In  the  days  when  the  pa 
triotic  enthusiasm  aroused  by  the  firing  on  Fort  Sumter 
was  still  unspent,  Tammany  Hall,  forgetting  what  its  repre 
sentatives  had  stood  for  in  February,5  adopted  resolutions 

1  Annual  Cyclopedia  for  2861,  p.  531. 
a  Annual  Cyclopcedia  for  2862,  p.  532. 

'Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States,  iii,  pp.  370-2  and  footnote. 
4  New  Orleans  Picayune,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  May  I. 
6  At  the  Democratic  State  Convention  in  February,  1861,  Tammany's 
delegates  adopted  an  address  to  which  was  appended,  among  other  re- 


148       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

worthy  of  its  past  glory.  These  resolutions  declared  that 
the  Democracy,  as  one  man,  were  "  heartily  united  to  up 
hold  the  constitution,  enforce  the  laws,  maintain  the  Union, 
defend  the  flag,  and  protect  the  Capital  of  the  United 
States;"  it  was  further  resolved  to  display  upon  the  front 
of  the  old  Wigwam,  until  the  war  was  over,  Jackson's  in 
spiring  words :  "  The  Union  must  and  shall  be  preserved."  l 
Tammany  determined  moreover  to  raise  a  regiment,2  and  it 
did  so,  with  William  D.  Kennedy,  who  not  long  after  was 
chosen  grand  sachem,  as  colonel.  So  strong  was  the  feel 
ing  of  the  people  that  Mozart  Hall  could  not  afford  to  be 
behind  Tammany  in  patriotism,  and  accordingly  Mozart 
too  set  about  raising  a  regiment.3 

In  fact,  the  people  moved  more  quickly  than  many  of 
the  Democratic  politicians.  There  is  evidence  that  some 
prominent  Democrats  in  New  York  State  were  swept  along 
by  the  revolutionary  tide  most  unwillingly.  Francis  Ker- 
nan,  then  the  Democratic  leader  in  the  Assembly,  having 
been  absent  from  the  session  of  April  I5th,  made  a  speech  on 
the  following  day,  in  which  he  declared  that  because  he  be 
lieved  there  was  danger  of  attempts  on  the  national  capital, 
he  favored  furnishing  the  federal  government  with  means 
to  repel  such  an  aggression.  "  But,"  he  continued, 

I  am  opposed  to,  and  I  trust  the  National  Government  will  not 
attempt  to  carry  an  aggressive  war  into  the  Southern  States. 
Such  a  war  will  neither  preserve  or  restore  the  Union.  .  .  .  If, 

solves,  this:  "That  we  will,  by  all  proper  and  legitimate  means,  oppose, 
discountenance,  and  prevent  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Republicans 
in  power  to  make  any  armed  aggression  under  the  plea  of  '  enforcing 
the  laws'  or  'preserving  the  Union'  upon  the  Southern  States"  (Ad 
dress  and  resolves  printed  in  full  in  the  Argus,  Feb.  2). 

1  Tribune,  April  27.  *  Herald,  May  3- 

*  Herald,  May  12. 


349J  POLITICS  AT  THE  EVE  OF  THE  WAR 

then,  we  cannot  adjust  our  differences  now  by  concessions 
which  will  make  us  one  people,  is  it  not  better  to  separate 
peaceably  ? * 

The  Argus  commended  Kernan's  speech  as  discriminat 
ing  and  patriotic.  The  leading  editorial  of  this  paper  on 
April  1 5th  said,  "We  are  two  nations  henceforth."  It 
further  asserted  that  the  war  was  not  for  the  vindication  of 
the  Union  but  for  its  dissolution;  that  the  administration 
merely  waited  to  recognize  separation  until  public  opin 
ion  was  ripe  for  it.  Another  editorial  in  the  same  issue, 
entitled  "A  False  Alarm  —  Its  Fraudulent  Object,"  de 
clared  that  an  attack  upon  Washington  was  impossible,  and 
continued :  The  defense  of  Washington  is  a  mere  pretence 
for  this  armament.  Do  not  let  us  rush  into  a  war  against 
the  Southern  Confederacy,  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  un 
der  the  influence  of  a  panic  of  this  kind."  And  on  this 
same  day,  the  same  paper  said : 

The  President  .  .  .  has  issued  a  requisition  for  75,000  troops 
from  the  States.  Where  does  he  find  the  power  to  do  this? 
Congress  refused  to  pass  any  laws  for  such  a  purpose.  The 
existing  acts  of  Congress  confer  no  such  authority.  .  .  .  Let 
not  our  Democratic  legislators  be  decoyed  into  countenancing 
any  such  act  of  usurpation.  Stand  by  the  Constitution  and 
Laws,  but  resist  usurpation ! 2 

The  New  York  Express  and  the  Utica  Observer  pub 
lished  similar  utterances.3  But  on  the  iQth,  the  Argus  came 
out  strongly  for  the  support  of  the  national  government;4 
and  a  few  days  later,  it  spoke  of  the  Albany  meeting  as 

1  Argus,  April  17.  *  Argus,  April  15. 

'Quoted  in  Greeley's  American  Conflict,  i,  p.  455. 
*  Argus,  April  19. 


YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [350 

composed  of  "  citizens  heretofore  of  all  parties,  who  are 
proud  to  unite  themselves  henceforth  to  the  party  of  the 
Union.  .  .  ."  *  The  tide  among  the  masses  was  too  strong 
to  be  resisted.  Alas  that  in  many  the  noble  impulse  to  bury 
party  action  during  the  country's  crisis  so  soon  spent  its 
force ! 

1  Argus,  April  23. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE 

THE  claim  subsequently  made  for  partisan  purposes  that 
the  North  was  united  until  Lincoln  entered  upon  an  aboli 
tion  course  is  erroneous  so  far  as  New  York  State,  one  of 
the  most  important  centers  of  opposition  to  the  adminis 
tration,  is  concerned.  Whatever  unanimity  existed,  lasted 
there  at  the  most  only  until  the  defeat  at  Bull  Run.  Even 
before  that,  the  Argus  had  in  editorials  at  the  end  of  April 
and  the  beginning  of  May  denounced  any  perversion  of  the 
war  into  an  emancipation  crusade;  and  in  May  and  the 
following  months,  it  came  out  strongly  against  the  "  no 
party"  idea,  pointing  to  continued  wholesale  displacement  of 
Democratic  postmasters.  "  Let  the  removals  go  on,  if  the 
Administration  wishes  it,"  this  paper  said,  "  but  let  this  no 
party  pretence  be  given  up,  .  .  ."  *  In  this  same  month,  the 
Argus  condemned  as  a  high-handed  outrage  the  govern 
ment's  seizure  of  dispatches  ;2  in  June,  it  attacked  the  arrest 
of  Marshal  Kane  ;s  and  at  the  end  of  August,  it  assailed  the 
Republicans  because  of  the  measures  directed  against  the 
Journal  of  Commerce  and  other  New  York  Democratic 
papers  accused  of  disloyalty.4  As  early  as  May,  Benjamin 

1  Argus,  May  21. 

*  Argus,  May  22. 

1  Argus,  June  29.     For  this  incident,  see  the  Annual  Cyclopcsdia  for 

mi,  p.  360. 

*  Argus,  Aug.  31. 

351]  151 


1 52        NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [352 

Wood  in  his  Daily  News  was  abusing  the  administration 
and  denouncing  the  war. 

On  the  27th  of  June,  an  editorial  convention,  represent 
ing  thirteen  papers  opposed  to  the  war,  met  at  the  Astor 
House.  The  only  prominent  member  of  the  convention  was 
Wood,  and  the  principal  Democratic  organs  in  the  State 
were  not  represented.1  The  resolutions  adopted  declared 
that  the  first  requisite  to  a  restoration  of  the  Union  was 
peace;  that  the  alarming  and  deplorable  condition  of  the 
country  was  mainly  due  to  the  exercise  of  unconstitutional 
powers  by  the  President,  who  had  "  not  hesitated  to  in 
augurate  a  war,  to  enlist  a  large  standing  army,  to  increase 
the  navy,  to  seize  private  papers,  to  deny  citizens  the  right 
to  bear  arms,  and  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  all 
of  which  are  in  direct  violation  ...  of  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States/'  The  resolutions  further  pointed  out 
the  burden  of  the  enormous  war  expenses  and  the 
danger  of  a  standing  army,  denounced  the  Morrill  tariff 
as  "  simply  a  part  of  the  machinery  of  monarchy  to  enrich 
the  few  at  the  expense  of  the  many,"  and  concluded  by 
asserting  that  the  Republican  party  had  proved  that  "all  its 
pretensions  of  devotion  to  '  freedom,  free  speech  and  free 
discussion  '  were  simply  cloaks  to  conceal  their  [sic]  real 
enmity  to  liberty,  .  .  .  and  that  the  attempt  to  muzzle  the 
Democratic  press  by  mobs  and  terrorism  .  .  .  deserves  the 
sternest  condemnation."  2 

From  the  early  summer  of  1861,  the  peace  press  con 
tinued  this  violent  criticism  of  the  administration.  The 
following  is  a  sample  from  the  New  York  Daily  News: 

lfferald,  June  28;  the  Argus  (June  24)  severely  condemned  the  whole 
affair. 

1  Herald,  June  28. 


353]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY  153 

The  extra  session  convened  by  President  Lincoln  came  together 
for  the  avowed  object  of  promptly  endorsing  the  most  stu 
pendous  series  of  frauds,  political  villainies,  and  usurpations  of 
power  that  have  been  perpetrated  in  any  civilized  country  since 
the  days  of  Henry  the  Eighth.  .  .  and  it  has  fulfilled  its  mis 
sion,  with  a  reckless  disregard  of  conscience  and  duty  worthy 
of  the  satellites  of  an  abolition  administration.  It  has  virtually 
abrogated  democratic  government,  and  inaugurated  a  worse 
than  Mohamedan  [sic]  despotism.  It  has  set  at  naught  the  sol 
emn  precepts  of  the  fathers  of  the  republic ;  treated  the  consti 
tution  as  a  dead  letter ;  passed  laws  of  the  most  fundamentally 
destructive  and  unconstitutional  character;  given  its  sanction 
to  murders,  massacres,  illegal  imprisonments,  robberies  of  the 
treasury,  and  the  withdrawal  of  all  security  of  life  and  prop 
erty  to  private  citizens,  and  foreshadowed  negro  insurrections, 
wholesale  confiscations  and  authorized  anarchy  as  a  necessary 
portion  of  the  immediate  future.1 

In  the  middle  of  August,  the  Daily  News,  the  Journal 
of  Commerce,  the  Day  Book,  and  the  Freeman's  Journal,  all 
published  in  New  York  City,  and  the  Brooklyn  Eagle  were 
the  subjects  of  a  presentment  by  a  grand  jury  in  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court,  being  charged  with  frequently  encour 
aging  the  rebels  by  expressions  of  sympathy  and  agreement 
with  them.2  Soon  after,  the  use  of  the  mails  was  forbidden 
to  these  papers.3  In  September,  the  Westchester  County 

1  Daily  News,  July  22,  quoted  in  the  Herald,  July  23. 

1 Herald,  Aug.  17;  Annual  Cyclopedia  for  1861,  p.  329.  Three  very 
small  meetings  in  favor  of  peace  were  held  in  New  York  State  about 
this  time;  one  in  Nyack  (Tribune,  July  13);  another  by  the  inhabi 
tants  of  Broome,  Delaware,  and  Chenango  Counties  (Tribune,  Aug.  5); 
and  a  third  in  Schoharie  County  (Albany  Evening  Journal,  Aug.  i). 
In  New  York  City,  a  peace  petition  was  seized  by  Superintendent  of 
Police  Kennedy.  These  meetings  were  attended  by  so  few  persons 
that  they  have  little  significance. 

8  Tribune,  Aug.  25;  Annual  Cyclopedia  for  1861,  p.  329.     The  Daily 


NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [354 

Grand  Jury  presented  a  number  of  New  York  papers,  in 
cluding  the  Yonkers  Herald  and  the  New  York  Staats 
Zeitung  as  tending  to  give  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemies 
of  the  government.1  Later,  the  Franklin  County  Gazette 
was  suppressed  and  its  editor  lodged  in  Fort  Lafayette.2 
New  York  State  seems  to  have  had  more  of  these  peace 
papers  than  other  Northern  states,3  and  these  disloyal  sheets 
were  by  no  means  confined  to  the  metropolis  and  its  vicinity 
but  were  scattered  throughout  the  State.  They  kept  at 
tacking  the  administration's  measures,  harping  on  the  con 
stitution  and  personal  rights,  and  advocating  peace.  They 
stimulated  opposition,  and  contributed  toward'  the  sub 
sidence  of  the  patriotic  movement  of  April,  '61  in  favor 
of  the  laying  aside  of  parties  during  the  war. 

It  would  be  an  error,  however,  to  attribute  too  much  in 
fluence  to  these  newspapers,  which  for  the  most  part  had 
but  small  circulations.  Such  guidance,  the  state  Demo 
cratic  organization  steadily  refused  to  follow.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  when  the  time  came  in  the  early  days  of  Au 
gust,  1 86 1,  for  the  party  leaders  to  decide  on  their  course 
in  view  of  the  crisis  in  the  country's  affairs,  the  Democrats 
deliberately  rejected  an  opportunity  to  continue  the  una 
nimity  of  sentiment  which  the  fall  of  Fort  Sumter  had 
brought  about,  and  chose  to  support  the  war  and  oppose 

News  soon  after  suspended  publication  (resumed  in  1863);  McMasters, 
editor  of  the  Freeman's  Journal,  and  Reeves,  editor  of  the  Greenpoint 
Watchman,  were  sent  to  Fort  Lafayette;  and  the  Journal  of  Commerce 
changed  editors. 

1  Herald,  Sept.  10.  *  Annual  Cyclopaedia  for  1861,  p.  33O. 

5 In  the  list  of  "peace  newspapers"  published  in  the  Daily  News 
(quoted  in  the  Herald,  Aug.  2l),  New  York  State  leads  with  twenty- 
four;  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey  and  Connecticut  come  next  with  thir 
teen,  seven,  and  five  respectively.  To  the  twenty-four  should  be  added 
three  more  in  Westchester  County,  one  on  Long  Island,  and  two  Ger 
man  papers  in  New  York  City— all  not  included  in  the  list. 


355]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY 

the  administration — an  illogical  position  which  could  but 
lead  to  a  renewal  of  divisions  among  the  people. 

On  the  6th  of  August,  the  Republican  State  Committee 
invited  the  Democratic  State  Committee  to  call  the  Demo 
cratic  State  Convention  at  the  same  time  and  place  as  the 
Republican  convention,  in  order  that  they  might  unite  on  a 
Union  ticket  pledged  to  "a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war, 
for  the  restoration  of  the  authority  of  the  constitution  and 
the  execution  of  the  federal  laws  in  all  sections  of  the  coun 
try."  *  This  move  was  both  patriotic  and  magnanimous, 
the  offer  coming  from  the  stronger  to  the  weaker  side. 
It  was  also  wise  politically,  since  its  rejection  by  the  Demo 
crats  would  rightly  expose  the  latter  to  the  charge  of  foster 
ing  divisions  in  the  North.  Indeed,  if  the  Democrats  were 
in  favor  of  the  war  to  maintain  the  'constitution — as  they 
constantly  averred — the  platform  proffered  was  one  upon 
which  both  parties  might  well  have  joined  without  sacrificing 
the  principles  of  either.  Such  a  result  would  have  strength 
ened  the  administration  in  its  efforts  to  subdue  the  rebellion, 
and  very  likely  would  have  aided  in  bringing  about  similar 
action  in  other  states.2  Thus  there  might  have  been  formed 
a  Union  party  whose  only  opponent  in  the  North  would 
have  been  the  peace  advocates.  That  the  politicians  who  con 
trolled  the  organization  in  New  York  failed  to  rise  to  such 
an  act  of  statesmanship  is  not  astonishing  when  one  con 
siders  the  force  of  party  ties,  the  power  of  the  idea  of  pre 
serving  the  party  machinery,  the  repugnance  to  the  "  black 

1  These  resolutions  are  printed  in  the  Herald,  Aug.  7. 

'Apparently,  the  New  York  State  Republican  and  Democratic  Com 
mittees  led  the  way  in  regard  to  this  matter.  By  the  middle  of  August, 
the  Republicans  of  Ohio  and  Vermont  had  made  similar  offers.  The 
New  York  Democratic  State  Committee  was  the  first  to  decline 
(Tribune,  Aug.  10). 


YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [356 

Republican "  party,  and  the  hope  of  gaining  advantages 
over  it  in  the  future. 

When  the  Democratic  State  Committee  met,  all  of  the 
members  except  Ben  Wood  were  in  favor  of  coming  out  for 
a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  but  accompanied  by  the 
olive-branch  of  compromise.  It  was  clear  that  the  mass  of 
the  people  in  this  State  would  give  no  support  at  that  time 
to  an  anti-war  party.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Democrats 
had  been  preaching  compromise  for  months;  and  to  some 
this  perhaps  still  seemed  the  most  patriotic  course  and  the 
one  best  calculated  to  end  the  rebellion.  Furthermore  such  a 
policy  appealed  to  the  politicians  who  looked  forward  to  the 
time  when  a  reunited  Democracy  would  again  dispense  the 
nation's  patronage.  The  Democratic  committee  accordingly 
refused  to  accept  the  invitation  of  the  Republicans.  The 
declination  hypocritically  declared  that  the  Democrats 
were  "  ready  to  unite  in  political  action  with  every  citizen 
who  looks  to  the  preservation  of  the  constitution  and  the 
perpetuation  of  the  Union  as  the  great  end  to  be  arrived 
at  ...  ;"  they  believed  that  the  government  should  at 
all  times  "  hold  out  terms  of  peace  and  accommodation  to 
the  dissevered  States."  Above  all,  they  repelled  the  idea 
of  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  the  North  and  the  South 
which  could  "  only  terminate  in  the  subjugation  of  one  or 
the  other."  While  condemning  secession,  they  abhorred 
"  that  aggressive  and  fanatical  sectional  policy  which  has  so 
largely  contributed  to  the  present  danger  of  the  country." 
They  would  unite  with  those  who  favored  honesty  in  the 
national  and  state  governments  and  in  the  award  of  con 
tracts,  and  the  expulsion  of  corrupt  persons  from  office.1 

Sufficient  condemnation  of  the  committee's  action  is  found 

1  Reply  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee,  printed  in  the  Herald, 
Aug.  9. 


357]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY 

in  the  call  adopted  by  it  for  the  Democratic  State  Convention. 
This  document  invited  the  participation  of  all  citizens  who 
believed  (among  other  things)  that  the  crisis  demanded  the 
subordination  of  the  interests  of  party  to  those  of  the  coun 
try.1  The  State  Committee  of  the  Constitutional  Union 
party  resolved  that  "  If  partisan  strife  .  .  .  [is]  still  to 
engross  the  public  mind  .  .  .  ,  there  is  but  little  hope  for 
the  permanency  of  the  confederacy.  May  we  not,  then, 
hope  that  party  or  political  distinctions  may  be  obliterated 
in  this  State?"2  We  have  already  noticed  the  action  of 
the  Republicans  toward  effecting  the  same  result.  The  fact 
that  the  various  parties  found  it  advisable  to  advocate  this 
relinquishment  of  party  shows  that  the  mass  of  the  people 
would  have  welcomed  a  temporary  cessation  of  the  custom 
ary  contention.  The  responsibility  for  preventing  that 
which  would  have  greatly  strengthened  the  North  in  its 
struggle  with  rebellion  must  largely  rest  upon  the  Demo 
cratic  politicians,  and  not  least  upon  Dean  Richmond  and 
his  associates  on  the  Democratic  State  Committee  of  New 
York. 

Light  on  the  policy  thus  adopted  by  the  Regency  leaders 
is  shed  by  an  editorial  which  appeared  about  this  time  in 
their  organ,  the  Albany  Argus.  After  stating  that  there 
were  four  conceivable  ways  of  treating  the  war,  two  of 
which — separation  and  emancipation — the  Democrats  em 
phatically  opposed,  and  the  third — subjugation — they 
deemed  incapable  of  restoring  the  Union,  the  writer  goes 
on  to  speak  of  the  fourth  possible  course,  namely  restora 
tion,  as  follows: 

lCall  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee,  printed  in  the  Hevald, 
Aug.  10. 

•Resolutions   of   the    State    Executive    Committee,    printed   in   the 
Herald,  Aug.  18. 


NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [358 

Loyalty  cannot  be  restored  in  a  rebellious  people  except  by 
concessions  on  the  part  of  the  Government  ...  we  think  the 
Union  is  to  be  restored  by  the  same  spirit  of  forbearance,  con 
ciliation,  and  compromise,  which  inspired  our  fathers  .  .  .  and 
that  "  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  should  be  accom 
panied  by  the  most  liberal  proffers  of  peace."  If  we  are 
tauntingly  asked  what  terms  of  compromise  we  propose,  we 
answer  such  as  Holt,  Crittenden,  Guthrie,  Johnson,  and  other 
tried  and  devoted  Union  men  in  the  Border  States  shall  say 
are  necessary  to  build  up  a  Union  party  and  restore  loyalty  at 
the  South.1 

What  was  the  object  of  such  a  policy?  The  organ  of  Tam 
many,  the  New  York  Leader,  said:  "...  the  Democratic* 
party  of  the  State  of  New  York  may  wield  an  all  but  om 
nipotent  influence  over  the  final  shaping  of  those  events  and 
mutual  concessions  which  must  precede  a  return  of  the  now 
revolted  States  to  their  allegiance."  2 

In  the  middle  of  August,  the  Breckinridge  State  Com-, 
mittee  met.  They  decided  to  hold  no  separate  convention 
but  to  participate  in  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  Demo 
cratic  convention  already  called  by  their  former  rivals,  the 
"  softs  ".  And  thus,  the  "  hards  "  disappeared  from  the 
political  history  of  the  State.  Some  of  them  were  good 
material  for  the  future  development  of  Copperheadism. 
In  their  resolutions  adopted  on  this  occasion,  they  deplored 
the  "long  predicted  result  of  the  Northern  sectional  ag 
gressions  upon  the  rights  of  the  Southern  States;"  re 
peated  the  assertion  that  "  the  worst  and  most  ineffectual 
argument  that  can  be  addressed  to  the  seceding  States  is 
war;"  they  denied  that  the  war  was  in  any  sense  "a  war 

1  Quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  16. 
J  Quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  20. 


359]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY  159 

for  the  Union  " ;  they  advocated  "  an  armistice  between  the 
now  contending  armies  .  .  .  and  the  immediate  convo 
cation  of  delegates  from  all  the  States  "  to  adjust  all  dif 
ferences;  and  they  denounced  aggressions  on  free  speech 
and  a  free  press,  arbitrary  arrests,  the  denial  of  the  right 
of  petition,  the  defiance  of  the  courts  by  the  military,  "  the 
suppression  of  newspapers,  the  deprivation  of  the  militia 
of  their  arms,  the  declaration  and  enforcement  of  martial 
law,  and  the  unauthorized  seizures  and  searches  without 
sanction  of  legal  proofs."  x  Fortunately  this  faction  was 
no  longer  very  strong  in  the  State,  and  the  number  repre 
sented  by  this  committee  was  small  compared  to  the  great 
mass  of  Democrats  there.  Not  long  after,  a  letter  signed 
by  Gideon  J.  Tucker,  who  was  prominent  in  Mozart  Hall, 
and  three  others  announced  the  formation  in  New  York 
City  of  an  organization  "  opposed  to  the  coercion  of  States, 
hostile  to  the  arbitrary  and  unconstitutional  acts  of  the 
present  Federal  Administration,  and  in  favor  of  peace  and 
a  restoration  of  the  Union."  2  The  presence  of  such  men 
as  these  extremists  in  the  ranks  of  the  New  York  Democ 
racy  formed  a  force  moving  towards  disloyalty. 

When  the  Democratic  State  Convention  met  at  Syra 
cuse  on  September  4th,  the  peace  faction  was  on  hand  in 
great  strength.  In  some  degree  this  was  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  former  Breckinridge  men  participated  in  the  choice 
of  delegates,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  some  Democrats  who 
believed  in  laying  aside  politics  during  the  war,  did  not. 
Prominent  among  the  anti-war  delegates  were  Ben  Wood, 
John  A.  Green,  chairman  of  the  late  Breckinridge  State 
Committee :  Gideon  J.  Tucker,  and  McMasters,  editor  of  the 
notoriously  disloyal  sheet,  the  Freeman's  Journal.  The 

1  Resolutions  of  the  committee,  printed  in  the  Herald,  Aug.  16. 

2  Circular  letter  printed  in  the  Tribune,  Sept.  2. 


!6o       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [360 

peace  men  were  exceedingly  active,  working  for  resolu 
tions  in  accord  with  their  ideas.1  Indeed,  as  the  delegates 
gathered,  attention  was  centered  on  the  platform,  and  but 
little  was  said  of  the  ticket  to  be  nominated.2 

The  Regency  forces  were  led  by  Dean  Richmond,  Peter 
Cagger,  and  Sanford  E.  Church;  and  through  the  pos 
session  of  the  state  committee  and  thereby  of  the  presiding 
officer  of  the  convention,  they  had  control  of  the  committees 
of  the  convention.  Nevertheless,  the  peace  men  were  strong 
enough  to  upset  the  Regency's  plans.  From  New  York 
City  came  contesting  delegations  chosen  respectively  by 
Tammany  and  Mozart.  The  latter  had,  previous  to  the 
assembling  of  the  convention,  offered  the  olive-branch  to 
Tammany  on  the  basis  of  an  equal  division  of  the  seats  of 
New  York  County ; 3  but  Tammany  refused,  and  at  the 
same  time  adopted  resolutions  expressing  its  determination 
to  support  the  government  in  suppressing  treason  and  main 
taining  the  Union.4  Immediately  after  the  organization  of 
the  convention,  the  rival  claims  of  Tammany  and  Mozart 
came  up.  Because  of  the  well-founded  suspicion  that  Mo 
zart  was  not  heartily  in  favor  of  the  war,5  the  question  in 
volved  more  than  mere  regularity.6  The  majority  of  the 
committee  on  contested  seats  reported  in  favor  of  seating 

1  Herald,  Sept.  5;  Argus,  Sept.  5. 

*  Herald,  Sept.  5. 

8  Resolutions  of  the  Mozart  General  Committee,  printed  in  the 
Herald,  Aug.  20. 

*  Resolutions  of  the  Tammany  Hall  General  Committee,  printed  in 
the  Herald,  Aug.  30. 

5  It  is  not  intended  to  imply  that  all  the  followers  of  Mozart  were  at 
this  time  against  the  war.  The  Herald  correspondent  wrote,  "I  find 
that  the  Mozart  delegation  is  about  evenly  divided  on  the  war  question  " 
(Herald,  Sept.  5). 

*  Argus,  Sept.  6. 


361]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY  161 

the  Tammany  delegates.  A  delegate  moved  as  a  substitute 
to  admit  both  Tammany  and  Mozart,  each  to  have  seven 
teen  votes.  The  substitute  was  adopted,  no  to  98,  the  fol 
lowers  of  the  Regency  voting  against  it.1  Thereupon,  Tam 
many  withdrew  to  consult. 

The  Regency  had  suffered  a  defeat;  but  the  convention 
having  adjourned  to  the  next  day,  Richmond  and  his  aids 
labored  for  a  reconsideration,  declaring  that  the  admis 
sion  of  Mozart  would  be  construed  as  an  endorsement  of 
Ben  Wood  and  the  anti-war  policy  of  the  Daily  News.2 
The  Tammany  delegation  in  the  meantime  had  adopted 
and  circulated  a  protest,3  asserting  that  their  organization 
was  "  honestly  and  earnestly  in  favor  of  prosecuting  the 
war  and  of  yielding  to  the  government  in  all  legitimate 
measures  ...  a  zealous  support ;"  that  "  in  entertaining 
these  sentiments,"  Tammany  was  "  widely  and  irreconcil 
ably  different  in  opinion  and  action  from  the  Mozart  Hall 
organization;"  and  that  Tammany  therefore  declined  to 
participate  further  in  the  convention.  Immediately  on  the 
reassembling  of  that  body  on  the  second  day,  however,  a 
motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  admitting  both  Tammany  and 
Mozart  was  made  and  carried,  114  to  87.  Then  came  the 
main  question.  The  substitute  adopted  on  the  preceding 
day  was  now  defeated,  the  majority  report  of  the  committee 

1  Herald,  Sept.  5;  report  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee  of  the 
Mozart  delegation  (in  the  Tribune,  Sept.  10) . 

*  Herald,  Sept.  5,  6.     "This  result  astounded  the  managers,  who  ob 
tained  a  ready  adjournment,  avowing  their  determination  to  reverse  the 
proceedings  on  the  next  day.   ...  by  threats,   fraudulent  appliances 
and  the  most  disgraceful  deceptions  and  -misrepresentations,  they  were 
successful"  (Report  of  the  Mozart  delegation,  printed  in  the  Tribune, 
Sept.  10).     The  report  goes  on  to  protest  that  Mozart  is  loyal.     "It  is 
true  the   Regency  and  their  Tammany  allies  alleged  that  we  were  of 
doubtful  patriotism  .  .  .  ." 

•  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Sept.  8. 


YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [362 

on  contested  seats  was  adopted,  Mozart  withdrew,  and 
Tammany  entered  into  sole  possession  of  New  York 
County's  representation.1 

The  number  of  nays  in  the  vote  to  reconsider  showed 
the  strength  of  the  peace  advocates.  When  it  came  to  the 
adoption  of  the  platform,  they  won  a  decided  victory.  The 
contest  occurred  over  what  was  subsequently  known  during 
the  campaign  as  the  "  ninth  resolution  ".  This  read : 

We  protest  against  the  doctrine  that  any  power  except  the 
representatives  of  the  people,  can  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  for  civil  offences.  We  protest  against  the  assumption 
of  the  executive  power  to  establish  a  system  of  passports ; 
against  the  right  of  the  federal  government  to  organize  sys 
tems  of  State  police;  against  the  assumption  of  the  federal 
executive  to  suppress  the  discussions  of  a  free  press,  by  the 
refusal  of  mail  facilities,  or  in  any  way  except  the  decisions 
of  the  civil  tribunals;  and  that,  finally,  we  protest  against  the 
doctrine  of  President  Lincoln's  message,  that  the  States  derive 
their  authority  from  the  federal  government,  as  subversive  of 
the  fundamental  doctrine  of  American  liberty.  .  .  . 2 

This  plank  had  been  adopted  by  the  committee  on  resolu 
tions  and  then  stricken  out  by  it.  In  the  convention,  a  dele 
gate  moved  that  the  omitted  resolution  be  restored.  After 
discussion,  the  motion  was  carried.8 

The  rest  of  the  platform,  adopted  for  the  most  part  with 
out  debate,  asserted  that  the  Democracy's  watchword  in 
the  crisis  should  be,  "  The  Union  must  and  shall  be  pre- 

1  Herald,  Sept.  6. 

1  Herald,  Sept.  8.     The  Herald  of  Sept.  6,  which  contains  the  rest  of 
the  platform,  gives  only  a  summary  of  the  ninth  resolution. 
8  Herald,  Sept.  6. 


363]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY 

served;"  condemned  secession  as  revolution;  declared  that 
the  seizure  of  the  forts  and  federal  property  precipitated 
the  war,  and  that  it  was  "  the  duty  of  the  government  to 
prosecute  the  war  thus  forced  upon  it  with  all  its  power  " 
and  of  the  people  "  to  rally  ...  to  the  support  of  the  gov 
ernment  until  the  struggle  is  ended  by  the  triumph  of  the 
Constitution  and  laws,  and  the  restoration  of  the  Union;" 
blamed  the  Northern  politicians  for  stirring  up  between  the 
North  and  the  South  an  "  irrepressible  conflict " ;  asserted 
that  the  loss  of  the  border  states  was  due  to  the  obstinacy 
of  the  Republicans  in  adhering  to  the  Chicago  platform; 
and  charged  the  prolongation  of  the  war  by  another  year, 
adding  millions  of  dollars  and  thousands  of  lives  to  the  cost, 
to  the  same  cause.  Another  resolution  recommended  that 
Congress  offer  to  the  loyal  people  of  the  South  a 
convention  of  all  the  states  to  revise  and  amend  the  consti 
tution.  Further,  it  was  declared  that  the  Democracy  would 
regard  "  any  attempt  to  pervert  this  conflict  for  the  eman 
cipation  of  the  slaves  as  fatal  to  all  the  hopes  for  the  res 
toration  of  the  Union  ",  and  that  the  Democrats  would  not 
support  such  a  war;  the  Republican  administration  should 
abandon  the  Chicago  platform,  expel  the  corrupt  from  oflice, 
exclude  from  its  councils  advocates  of  separation  and  abol 
itionists,  and  reconstruct  the  cabinet.  Then  the  resolutions 
thanked  the  soldiers  and  promised  to  protect  them  from 
the  politicians  and  contractors,  and  closed  with  the  assertion 
that  a  Democratic  victory  in  New  York  State  would  be 
hardly  less  auspicious  for  the  cause  of  the  Union  than  the 
triumph  of  the  federal  arms.1 

The  platform  was  thus  of  that  mixed  character  so  often 
found  in  such  documents.  Even  as  reported  from  the  com 
mittee,  it  faced  both  ways,  the  strong  war  resolutions  with 

1  Herald,  Sept.  6. 


X64       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [364 

which  it  opened  and  which  alone  must  have  satisfied  any 
supporter  of  the  war  being  offset  by  the  second  half  of 
the  resolutions  with  their  flings  at  the  Republicans,  their 
threat  not  to  support  the  war  should  an  attempt  be  made 
to  emancipate  the  slaves,  and  their  general  upholding  o| 
party  lines.  But  the  addition  of  the  ninth  resolution  gave 
a  disloyal  tone  to  the  whole  platform,  and  was  so  considered 
by  a  great  majority  of  the  voters,  as  the  election  showed.1 
It  was  reported  that  Dean  Richmond  after  the  close  of 
the  convention  denounced  this  resolution  in  the  most  bitter 
terms.2  Yet,  curiously  enough,  this  plank,  which  was  op 
posed  in  the  convention  by  the  Regency  managers,  and 
the  adoption  of  which  was  rightfully  considered  a  victory 
for  the  peace  men,  embodied  a  position  not  very  different; 
from  that  of  the  whole  party  a  year  later,  when  it  claimed 
to  be  standing  on  a  war  platform.  The  influence 
of  the  extremists  and  the  events  of  the  war  caused 
the  Democratic  organization  in  1862  to  approve  with  little 
dissent  that  which  many  Democrats  condemned  the  year 
before  as  disloyal  and  unwise.  After  the  adoption  of  the 
platform,  the  ticket,  headed  by  David  R.  Floyd  Jones  for 
secretary  of  state,  was  quickly  nominated,  some  of  the  places 
being  filled  without  any  contest.3  The  ninth  resolution 
proved  a  millstone.  Two  of  the  nominees,  Lyman  Tre- 
main,4  who  had  been  selected  for  attorney-general,  an  office 
to  which  he  had  already  been  once  elected  by  the  Democrats, 

lThe  Herald  (Sept.  8)  said  editorially  that  Wood's  followers  had  been 
turned  out  by  the  convention,  but  his  platform  adopted. 

*  Herald,  Sept.  8. 
8  Herald,  Sept.  6. 

4  Letter  of  Tremain  to  the  Democratic  State  Committee,  printed  in 
the  Tribune,  Sept.  n. 


265]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY  ^5 

and  Francis  C.  Brunck,1  nominated  for  state  treasurer,  de 
clined  because  of  the  platform  and  the  spirit  shown  by  the 
party;  and  the  disloyal  parts  of  the  resolutions  were  prac 
tically  repudiated  by  the  remaining  candidates.2 

Though  the  Democratic  organization  had  refused  to  lay 
aside  party,  many  who  had  formerly  adhered  to  it  disap-»* 
proved  of  this  action,  and  the  ninth  resolution  increased  the 
number  of  those  who  were  ready  to  throw  off  the  old  ties. 
The  Republicans  were  generally  inclined  to  a  union  with 
whoever  would  join  with  them  in  support  of  the  adminis-j 
tration.3  Thurlow  Weed  favored  such  a  movement.  The 
Albany  Evening  Journal  said  in  its  editorials :  "  It  is  hu 
miliating  to  find  men  only  thinking  of  party  when  the  Coun 
try  is  in  peril ;"  4  "  There  is  nothing  which  the  traitors  so 
much  desire,  just  now,  as  partisan  contests  at  the  North;"  5 
'  The  popular  sentiment  seems  to  demand  the  nomination 
of  a  ticket  composed  of  uncompromising  friends  of  the 
Union,  irrespective  of  party."  6  A  call,  issued  by  some 

1  Letter  of  Brunck  to  the  Democratic  State  Committee,  printed  in 
the  Tribune,  Sept.  17. 

2  See  note  2,  page  161. 

'Resolutions  of  the  Richmond  County  Republican  Convention 
(Tribune,  Aug.  21);  resolutions  of  the  2nd  assembly  district  convention 
of  Westchester  County  ( Tribune,  Sept.  7) ;  letter  from  a  correspondent 
in  Essex  County  saying  that  the  delegates  from  that  county  go  to  the 
state  convention  instructed  to  favor  the  nomination  of  a  state  ticket 
composed  of  men  of  all  parties  upon  the  single  basis  of  sustaining  the 
government  in  its  efforts  to  suppress  the  rebellion  (Albany  Evening 
Journal,  Sept.  6) ;  similar  letter  from  a  correspondent  in  Warren  County 
(Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  9);  action  of  the  ist  assembly  district 
Republican  convention  of  Cayuga  County,  instructing  delegates  in  favor 
of  a  "  Union"  ticket  (Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  10). 

4  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Aug.  27. 

6  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Aug,  10. 

6  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Aug.  30. 


T66       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [366 

half  dozen  men  of  various  political  antecedents,  summoned 
a  People's  convention  to  meet  at  Syracuse  on  September 
loth,  which  was  the  same  place,  and  one  day  previous  to 
the  time,  already  fixed  for  the  Republican  State  Conven 
tion.1 

When  the  People's  convention  assembled,  its  member 
ship  embraced  men  of  all  parties,  including  James  Brooks, 
F.  A.  Tallmadge,  William  Duer,  Thomas  G.  Alvord,  Noah 
Davis,  and  John  B.  Haskin.  There  were  Democrats, 
"hard"  and  "soft",  Constitutional-Unionists,  and  Re 
publicans.2  Apparently  the  delegations  were  chosen  by 
mass  meetings  or  conventions  of  men  of  all  parties;  and 
these  district  assemblages  were,  in  some  cases  at  least, 
denominated  "  Union "  conventions  or  meetings.3  The 
delegations  were  said  to  have  contained  about  equal  pro 
portions  of  Democrats  and  Republicans.4  Some  were  mem 
bers  of  both  the  People's  and  the  Republican  conventions,5 
and  naturally  the  prospect  of  an  agreement  between  the 
two  influenced  the  action  of  both.  Nevertheless,  the  Peo 
ple's  convention  represented  a  genuine  movement  arising 

1  Herald,  Sept.  8. 

2  Tribune,  Sept.  n:  "Every  shade  of  politics  participated  .  .  .  Prom 
inent  Democrats,  from  both  wings  of  the  party,  played  a  conspicuous 
part  in  its  [the  convention's]  doings,  and  leading  Bell-Everett  men  were 
present."     "  A  large  number  of  prominent  Democrats  arehere  [*.  e.,  at 
Syracuse]  every  one  of  whom  repudiates  the  platform  of  their  party" 
(Herald,  Sept.  11). 

'Notices  of  such  district  meetings  in  the  Argus,  Sept.  5,  7,  QJ  in  the 
Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  9.  The  Argus  of  Sept.  7  acknowledged 
that  the  call  for  the  Albany  meeting  was  signed  by  a  number  of  promi 
nent  Republicans  and  "by  some  of  our  Democratic  fellow  citizens." 

*  Herald,  Sept.  10.  Yet  a  review  of  the  People's  convention  in  the 
Argus  of  Sept.  18  claimed  that  there  were  probably  not  twenty-five 
Democrats  present  in  the  convention.  This  article  was,  however,  ap 
parently  a  partisan  effort  to  decry  the  convention. 

'Herald,  Sept.  u:  Argus,  Sept.  16. 


THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY  167 

from  the  patriotic  desire  to  lay  aside  party  during  the  crisis 
and  was  no  mere  Republican  side-show.  Thomas  G.  Al- 
vord,  ex-speaker  of  the  assembly,  for  thirty  years  a  Demo 
crat,  and  lately  a  prominent  follower  of  Breckinridge,  was 
chosen  temporary  chairman.  In  his  speech  he  declared 
that  the  question  before  the  country  must  submerge  all 
parties.  "  I  am  for  giving  to  the  government,"  he  said, 
"  the  greatest  possible  latitude  that  should  be  given  by  a 
free  people  in  such  a  crisis."  As  to  the  acts  of  the  admin 
istration  which  the  Democrats  had  assailed  in  their  ninth 
resolution,  Alvord  declared  that  had  the  President  "  done 
less  than  he  has  done  ...  he  would  be  more  entitled  to 
impeachment  than  he  is  now  for  any  violation  of  the  con 
stitution,"  a  sentiment  greeted  with  prolonged  applause.1 
These  were  the  opinions  of  a  real  War  Democrat.  That 
term,  both  during  the  rebellion  and  since,  has  been  used  in 
a  somewhat  confusing  way,  including  several  different  at 
titudes,  shading  into  one  another.  Horatio  Seymour  and 
men  of  his  type  were  and  are  sometimes  described  as  War 
Democrats;  but  this  designation  might,  perhaps,  be  more 
properly  limited  to  those  Democrats  who  either  became 
merged  into  the  Union  party  or,  while  retaining  their 
political  independence,  heartily  supported  the  war  meas 
ures  of  the  administration.  The  name  ought  not  to  be 
applied  to  those  who,  while  supporting  the  war  to  some 
extent,  embarrassed  the  government  by  a  constant  unsym 
pathetic  fire  of  criticism  of  its  methods. 

A  number  of  Bell-Everett  men,  the  rump  of  the  once 
powerful  American  party,  were  members  of  the  convention. 
They  endeavored  to  hasten  nominations  at  the  first  day's 
session.  The  Republicans  opposed  this  and  favored  as  long 
a  recess  as  possible  in  order  to  afford  time  for  consulta- 

1  Herald,  Sept.  n. 


!68       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [368 

tions  with  the  Republican  convention.  After  debate,  the 
Constitutional-Unionists  were  defeated,  and  the  conven 
tion  adjourned  for  that  day.1  On  the  next  morning,  com 
mittees  were  appointed,  and  an  adjournment  to  the  afternoon 
was  then  made  to  permit  the  assembling  of  the  Republican 
convention  in  the  meanwhile.  When  the  latter  gathered, 
neither  Weed  nor  Greeley  was  among  those  present;  but 
the  anti-Weed  men,  including  Opdyke,  Dana,  D.  D.  Field, 
and  Campbell,  were  there  in  force.  The  Republicans  ap 
pointed  a  committee  on  order  of  business,  which  conferred 
with  the  committee  on  nominations  of  the  People's  con 
vention.2  These  two  committees,  after  discussion,  agreed 
on  a  ticket,  including  Daniel  S.  Dickinson  for  attorney-gen 
eral,  Horatio  Ballard  for  secretary  of  state,  and  Lucius 
Robinson  for  comptroller.  Dickinson  had  been  a  life-long 
Democrat,  a  United  States  senator  from  New  York,  and  a 
leader  of  the  "  hard  shells  ".  He  was  the  most  prominent 
of  those  New  York  Democrats  who  entered  into  the  Union 
party  movement.  Ballard,  a  lawyer  of  Cortland  County, 
had  been  until  a  month  before  a  member  of  the  regular 
Democratic  State  Committee.  Robinson,  a  Republican  of 
Barnburner  Democratic  origin,  later  governor  of  the  State. 
had  served  in  the  assembly  and  had  been  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  ways  and  means,  making  for  himself  a  name 
for  incorruptibility  and  knowledge  of  the  State's  finances. 
The  whole  ticket  was  composed  of  three  Democrats,  five  Re 
publicans,  and  one  Bell-Everett  man.3  Only  W.  B.  Wright, 

1  Herald,  Sept.  11. 

2 Herald,  Sept.  12.  A  committee  on  nominations  was  also  appointed; 
yet,  it  was  intended  that  the  committee  on  order  of  business  should 
confer  on  nominations  with  the  committee  of  the  People's  convention 
(See  remarks  of  the  temporary  chairman  of  the  Republican  convention). 

3 Herald,  Sept.  12;  the  Tribune  (Sept.  12)  says  four  Democrats  and 
four  Republicans,  but  Dickinson,  Ballard,  and  Tappan  were,  apparently, 
the  only  Democrats. 


269]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY  ^9 

who  was  named  for  judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  could 
be  called  a  Weed  man,1  though  Weed  subsequently 
claimed  that  Ballard  was  nominated  by  his  influence.2 

Meanwhile,  the  Republicans  adjourned,  and  the  People's 
convention  again  took  possession  of  the  hall.  The  com 
mittee  on  resolutions  reported  a  platform  which  was 
adopted.  This  denied  any  intention  of  organizing  a  new 
party;  proclaimed  devotion  to  the  constitution  and  the| 
Union,  and  a  "  fixed  determination  to  defend,  maintain, 
and  perpetuate  them  at  every  hazard  and  at  whatever  cost " 
and  to  sustain  with  all  "  individual  and  united  power  and 
zeal  the  constitutionally  chosen  authorities  of  the  govern 
ment."  3  Then  the  ticket  agreed  upon  by  the  committee 
of  the  two  conventions  was  nominated  by  acclamation.  A 
proposal  to  organize  county  committees,  which  would  have 
been  a  step  toward  the  formation  of  the  machinery  of  a 
new  party,  was  opposed  by  the  delegates  who  were  Repub 
licans.  The  convention  finally  contented  itself  with  recom 
mending  local  mass  meetings  to  ratify  the  ticket  and  to 
take  such  further  action  as  might  be  found  necessary;  nor 
was  any  state  committee  appointed.4 

Immediately  after  the  adjournment  sine  die  of  the  Peo 
ple's  convention,  the  Republicans  for  the  second  time  that 
day  occupied  the  hall.  The  committee  on  nominations  re 
quested  more  time.  A  delegate  called  for  the  reading  of 
the  ticket  adopted  by  the  People's  convention.  A  motion 

1  The  state  treasurer,  comptroller,  and  attorney-general  on  the  Re 
publican  ticket  of  1859  were  not  renominated,  because  of  the  scandals 
connected  with  the  State  Military  Board.      For  complaints  and  accusa 
tions  against  this  board,  see  Herald,  May  16,  19,  23,  June  6,  Aug.  7; 
Tribune,  May  4,  n,  16,  June  28. 

2  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  473. 
8  Herald,  Sept.  12. 

* Herald,  Sept.  12;  Argus,  Sept.  12. 


I7o       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [370 

to  adjourn  to  the  morrow,  which  if  carried  might  have  led 
to  a  different  set  of  nominations  from  those  of  the  People's 
convention,  was  defeated,  93  to  108.  The  People's  con 
vention  ticket  was  then  read  and  cheered  with  the  exception 
of  Frederick  A.  Tallmadge,  a  Bell-Everett  man  nominated 
for  canal  commissioner.  His  name  was  hissed.1  After 
an  exciting  and  disorderly  debate,  Benjamin  F.  Bruce,  a 
good  Weed  Republican,  was  substituted  for  Tallmadge; 
this  settled,  the  remaining  names  as  agreed  upon  by  the 
conference  committees  were  speedily  nominated  by  the  Re 
publicans  too.2 

The  ticket  nominated  by  the  People's  convention  and 
endorsed,  with  one  minor  exception,  by  the  Republicans 
was  called  the  Union  ticket.  In  a  large  number  of  counties 
there  were  held  conventions  embracing  the  same  elements 
as  the  People's  State  Convention,  for  the  purpose  of  mak 
ing  nominations  for  local  offices  and  for  the  legislature. 
These  county  assemblages  were  generally  called  People's 
conventions,3  although  in  some  instances,  they  were  de 
nominated  Union  conventions.4  In  some  counties,  the  Re 
publican  and  People's  or  Union  conventions  agreed  on 
nominees ;  in  a  number,  there  was  only  a  partial  fusion ;  and 
in  some  cases,  the  local  tickets  were  wholly  different.  This 
lack  of  uniformity  brings  out  the  broken  state  of  party  lines. 
What  was  later  the  Union  party  was  yet  in  its  initial  stages 
of  formation,  and  in  some  localities  the  Republicans 
showed  themselves  averse  to  entering  upon  such  a  move- 

1  When  the  committee  on  credentials  of  the  People's  convention  had 
reported  that  a  considerable  number  were  delegates  to  both  conven 
tions,  Tallmadge  had  vainly  protested  against  that  condition  of  affairs 
(Herald,  Sept.  12). 

2  Herald,  Sept.  12. 

*E.  g.,   in  Queens,   Washington,  Albany,  Onondaga,   Chautauqua, 
and  Monroe  Counties. 
'E.g.,  Broome,  Westchester,  and  New  York  Counties. 


371]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY 

ment.1  Even  in  the  strongest  Republican  counties,  as  the 
Tribune  pointed  out,  the  effect  of  this  course  was  to  reduce 
the  majority  for  the  Union  state  ticket  by  alienating  Demo 
cratic  voters.2 

The  situation  in  New  York  City  was  particularly  interest 
ing.  Mozart  Hall,  having  been  kicked  out  of  the  Demo 
cratic  State  Convention,  denied  in  a  series  of  resolutions 
that  it  was  tainted  with  disloyalty,  and  affirmed  that  its 
members  were  "  for  maintaining  the  authority  of  the  gov 
ernment  '  peaceably  if  we  can  but  forcibly  if  we  must ;'  "  8 
and  it  ratified  the  Union  state  ticket.4  Tammany,  though 
victorious  in  the  convention,  found  the  platform  adopted 
by  that  body  and  especially  the  ninth  resolution  hard  to 
swallow.  At  this  time  public  sentiment — at  any  rate  so 
far  as  it  was  expressed — was  in  favor  of  the  war  and  of 
sustaining  the  administration.  Practically  all  the  important 
metropolitan  dailies  supported  the  Union  ticket.  More 
over,  the  platform  was  felt  to  be  inconsistent  with  Tam 
many's  position  from  the  beginning  of  hostilities.  Ac 
cordingly,  the  Tammany  General  Committee  adopted  an 
address  declaring  that  the  candidates  nominated  by  the 
Democratic  State  Convention  "  must  plant  themselves  upon 
the  patriotic  platform  upon  which  we  stand  or  they  cannot 
receive  our  support.  .  .  .  The  three  first  resolutions  of  the 
Democratic  State  Convention  embrace  all  the  declarations  it 
was  called  upon  to  make  in  regard  to  national  matters.  .  ." 

1  Extract  from  the  Utica  Herald  (in  the  Argus,  Oct.  24),  containing 
a  call  to  the  Republican  electors  of  Oneida  County,  asking  Republicans 
dissatisfied  with  the  action  of  the  People's  convention  in  that  county  to 
meet  in  mass  convention.  The  Argus  said  that  there  was  a  similar 
call  in  the  Buffalo  Express  for  a  convention  in  that  city. 

1  Tribune,  Oct.  10. 

8  Resolutions  printed  in  the  Herald,  Sept.  10. 

*  Her  aid.  Sept.  22. 


YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

.  .  .  ."  As  for  the  rest  of  the  resolutions  adopted  at  Syra 
cuse,  they  were  well  enough  as  an  "  expression  of  abstract 
doctrines  for  a  time  of  peace,  ...  but  if  designed  as  man 
acles  to  shackle  and  wedges  to  divide  the  nation,  while 
engaged  in  a  '  war  for  its  life '  they  deserve  ...  a  most 
decisive  repudiation." 

At  the  same  time  the  Tammany  General  Committee 
adopted  a  series  of  resolutions  which  are  worthy  of  atten 
tion  as  an  embodiment  of  a  far  more  patriotic  and  politi 
cally  wiser  position  than  that  of  the  state  organization. 
These  resolutions  declared  it  to  be  "  the  first  and  most  sacred 
duty  of  every  man  ...  to  devote  his  energies  and  his 
means,  with  all  his  heart  and  soul,  to  the  earnest  and  resist 
less  prosecution  of  the  war,  until  the  rebellion  is  utterly  sup 
pressed  .  .  .  ;"  that  the  President 

is  imperatively  required  ...  to  take  every  step  .  .  .  which 
may  be  necessary  to  secure  the  triumph  of  our  arms  .  .  .  and 
that  his  measures  in  this  respect  will  be  passed  upon  by  a 
generous  and  patriotic  people,  .  .  .  [who  will]  judge  his  ac 
tions  with  liberality  and  fairness,  without  party  spirit,  and 
with  a  just  appreciation  of  the  difficulties  ...  by  which  he  is 
surrounded. 

Then,  after  approving  Lincoln's  disavowal  of  Fremont's 
proclamation  of  emancipation,  the  resolutions  went  on  to 
defend  the  refusal  of  Tammany  to  abandon  the  Democratic 
state  organization  and  to  join  in  a  Union  party  movement, 
saying  that  if  the  Democrats  should  merge  in  a 

mere  temporary  party  for  the  war,  there  is  great  danger  that 
such  a  result  would  be  regarded  at  the  South  as  a  prelude  to  a 
war  of  emancipation  ...  A  democratic  organization  would, 
under  any  circumstances,  have  been  maintained  in  this  State, 
and  the  real  point  to  be  considered  is,  whether  it  was  [sic] 
better  for  the  country  that  democrats  in  favor  of  a  vigorous 


373]  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY  173 

prosecution  of  the  war  should  remain  with  their  party,  and 
secure  its  organization  in  aid  of  the  government,  or  ...  allow 
a  chance  for  the  democratic  party  to  be  controlled  by  less 
patriotic  influences.1 

All  of  the  candidates  on  the  state  ticket  replied  to  the  Tam 
many  General  Committee,  expressing  approval  of  the  reso 
lutions.2  That  organization  accordingly  endorsed  the  nomi 
nations.3 

When  it  came  to  a  division  of  the  county  spoils,  Tammany 
and  Mozart  managed  to  agree  on  every  name  except  that  for 
sheriff.  The  general  dissolution  of  the  old  parties,  which 
was  thought  to  be  going  on,4  caused  the  adherents  of  the 
Union  ticket  in  New  York  City  to  associate  in  a  reform 
movement  for  good  government.5  Among  the  prominent 
men  who  participated  therein  were  John  Jacob  Astor,  Peter 
Cooper,  William  Allen  Butler,  Moses  Taylor,  William  F. 
Havemeyer,  and  Alexander  T.  Stewart.6  A  number  of 
Union  organizations  were  formed,  each  advocating  a  more 
honest  and  economical  municipal  management.  Four  of 
these  associations  nominated  county  and  judicial  tickets  of 
their  own,  thus  threatening  through  divisions  to  wreck  any 
prospect  of  success.7  Finally,  just  before  the  election,  an 
agreement  was  reached  among  these  various  Union  organi 
zations  and  also  the  Republicans.8  The  Tammany-Mozart 

1  Herald,  Oct.  4. 

1  Letters  of  the  different  candidates  on  the  Democratic  state  ticket 
replying  to  the  Tammany  committee,  printed  in  the  Herald,  Nov.  5- 
8  Herald,  Oct.  27. 

4  Herald,  Oct.  12;  resolutions  of  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  Union  meet 
ing  (Tribune,  Sept.  19). 

5  Herald,  Sept.  20,  22,  Oct.  4;  Tribune,  Sept.  19. 

6  Herald,  Sept.  20,  Oct.  4. 

7  Herald,  Oct.  12,  27 ;  Tribune,  Oct.  17. 

8  Tribune,  Oct.  21 ;  Herald,  Oct.  27. 


YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [374 

coalition,  however,  was  victorious,  and  the  notorious  ring — 
then  in  its  early  stage — secured  a  great  triumph.  Henry 
W.  Genet,  who  at  that  time  was  the  leading  spirit  of  the 
ring,  was  elected  county  clerk;  and  A.  Oakey  Hall,  later 
mayor  at  the  time  of  the  Tweed  expose,  was  chosen  district 
attorney.  It  is  significant  of  the  methods  and  power  of  this 
corrupt  gang  that,  being  unable  wholly  to  control  Tammany 
on  this  occasion  and  to  prevent  the  nomination  of  Nelson  J. 
Waterbury  for  district  attorney,  the  ring  was  able  to  bring 
about  the  naming  of  Oakey  Hall  for  that  office  by  the  Re 
publicans  and  his  endorsement  by  Mozart.  Though  the 
third  of  the  ring  candidates,  William  M.  Tweed,  was  de 
feated  for  the  office  of  sheriff,  the  good  government  move 
ment  associated  with  the  Union  campaign  in  New  York 
City  was  a  failure. 

The  state  canvass  was,  on  the  whole,  very  quiet.1  The 
attention  of  the  people  was  absorbed  in  the  war,  this  was 
not  a  gubernatorial  election,  and  the  legislature  to  be  chosen 
would  select  no  United  States  senator.  So  the  politicians 
were  busied  rather  with  the  spoils  of  local  offices.  The 
declinations  of  Tremain  and  Brunck,  the  practical  repudia 
tion  of  the  ninth  resolution  by  all  of  the  Democratic  state 
candidates,  its  positive  rejection  by  Tammany,  and  the  en 
dorsement  of  the  Union  state  ticket  by  Mozart  all  pointed  to 

1 " .  .  .  the  prospects  are  that  it  will  prove  the  tamest  [election]  that 
has  been  known  for  many  years.  .  .  .  There  is,  in  fact,  outside  of  this 
city  and  county,  no  contest"  (Herald,  Nov.  2).  "We  doubt  if  there 
has  been  a  general  State  election  for  the  last  ten  years  where  there  has 
been  so  little  noise  attending  the  preparations.  Bonfires,  processions 
and  target  excursions  have  been  almost  unknown,  and  public  meetings 
few  and  far  between"  (Herald,  Nov.  4).  The  Rochester  correspon 
dent  of  the  Herald  (Oct.  24)  wrote :  "  While  the  electors  of  this  city 
and  many  other  localities  are  intently  absorbed  in  the  question  of 
county  candidates,  very  little  attention  seems  to  be  paid  to  the  State 
nominations." 


THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY  175 

the  probability  of  the  success  of  the  Union  ticket.1  The 
candidates  for  state  offices  on  both  tickets  claimed  to  stand 
on  a  platform  favoring  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  the 
war;  in  the  City  of  New  York  there  was  substantial  agree 
ment  on  national  questions  by  all  parties  and  organizations ; 
matters  of  state  policy  played  absolutely  no  part  in  the  cam 
paign;  and  thus  the  Democrats  had  no  issue  on  which  to 
make  an  aggressive  fight.  They  were  on  the  defensive,  and 
the  ninth  resolution  was  their  vulnerable  point.  A  note 
worthy  feature  of  the  contest  was  the  able  and  stirring 
speeches  of  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  strongly  in  support  of  the 
national  administration.  The  result  of  the  election  was  the 
success  of  the  Union  state  ticket — except  the  nominee  for 
canal  commissioner 2  —  by  a  hitherto  unprecedented  ma 
jority  in  this  State  of  107,000;  and  those  elected  on  Repub 
lican  and  on  Union  or  People's  tickets  together  would  con 
trol  both  branches  of  the  legislature.  At  the  same  time, 
there  was  a  tremendous  falling-off  in  the  Democratic  vote 
as  compared  with  that  of  i86o.3 

Of  more  than  local  interest  was  the  New  York  City 
charter  election  in  December,  1861,  when  a  successor  to 
Fernando  Wood  was  chosen.  The  Taxpayers  Union  and 
the  Rentpayers  Association  were  again  in  the  field  to  bring 
about  a  reform  in  the  city  government.4  This  element  com 
bined  with  the  Republicans  in  the  support  of  George  Op- 

1  The  Argus  (Nov.  7)  in  an  editorial  on  the  election  said  that  "if 
the  Democracy  had  not  been  chilled  in  the  outset  by  the  declination  of 
one   of   its   candidates,    and   betrayed   by   shameful   compromises   and 
combinations  in  the  Metropolis,"  the  result  would  have  been  different. 

2  Through  the  failure  of  the  People's  and  the  Republican  conventions 
to  agree  on  the  nominee  for  this  office,  Wright,  a  Democrat,  was  elected. 

*  Albany  Evening  Journal  Almanac  for  1862. 

4  Herald,   Nov.   17.     Messrs.   Stokes,   Minturn,   and  Astor  were  suc 
cessively  nominated  and  all  in  turn  declined. 


176        NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [376 

dyke.  The  latter  had  risen  from  a  journeyman  tailor  in 
New  Orleans1  to  be  one  of  New  York's  wealthy  mer 
chants.  He  had  served  in  the  legislature,  where  he  had 
shown  a  knowledge  of  commerce  and  finance,  and  in  1859 
had  been  the  Republican  candidate  for  mayor.  He  was  a 
radical  and  a  leader  of  the  anti-Weed  faction  of  his 
party.  Tammany  nominated  C.  Godfrey  Gunther,  a 
fur  merchant.  Wood  was  backed  for  reelection  by  his 
own  organization,  Mozart  Hall. 

Significantly,  the  attitude  of  the  candidates  toward  the 
war  was  the  chief  issue  of  the  campaign.  Wood  declared 
that  the  contest  was  one  of  conservative  nationalism  against 
abolitionism;  and  claiming  that  he  was  the  representative 
of  the  former,  he  devoted  his  speeches  largely  to  denuncia 
tion  of  the  latter.2  At  a  mass  meeting  of  Germans,  he  was 
reported  to  have  said: 

They  [the  abolitionists]  will  prosecute  it  [the  war]  so  long  as 
there  is  a  drop  of  Southern  blood  to  be  shed,  provided  they  are 
removed  from  the  scene  of  danger.  They  will  get  Irish  and 
Germans  to  fill  their  regiments  to  "  defend  the  country  "  under 
the  idea  that  they  themselves  will  remain  at  home,  and  divide 
the  plunder  .  .  .  They  have  conquered  all  the  strongholds  of 
the  North,  and  they  are  now  battling  against  the  citadel  of  the 
Empire  City  .  .  .3 

This  was  a  sample  of  Wood's  demagogism.  His  former 
connections  with  the  Southern  fire-eaters,  his  message  sug 
gesting  the  establishment  of  a  free  city  at  New  York,  and 
his  action  in  the  Georgia  rifle  seizure  caused  him  to  be  sus 
pected,  with  some  justice,  of  sympathizing  with  the  rebels; 

1  Herald,  Nov.  26. 

2  E.  g.  speeches  of  Nov.  27,  29. 
*  Tribune,  Nov.  28. 


377 j  THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY 

and  these  incidents  furnished  campaign  material  for  both 
Republicans  and  Tammany  speakers,  who  accused  him  of 
disloyalty.  Wood,  it  is  true,  had  changed  his  tone  when 
Sumter  fell.  But  in  the  early  months  of  the  war,  a  loyal 
attitude  was  a  necessity  for  any  politician  in  New  York  City 
who  desired  to  retain  his  power.  On  the  other  hand,  Op- 
dyke,  because  of  his  well-known  views  on  slavery,  was  as 
sailed  by  Tammany  and  Mozart  as  an  abolitionist.  The 
Herald  said :  "  The  two  principal  features  of  the  canvass 
were  the  anti-Wood  cry  and  anti-abolition."  T 

In  general,  the  supporters  of  Opdyke  and  of  Gunther  at 
tacked  the  candidates  of  each  other  but  sparingly,  and 
turned  their  fire  rather  against  the  crafty  Mozart  chief. 
Whether  to  vote  for  Opdyke  or  for  Gunther,  was  with 
many  simply  a  question  of  which  had  the  better  chance  of 
defeating  Wood.  Neither  of  the  Democratic  factions  could 
afford  to  be  beaten  by  the  other.  It  was  the  closest  triangu 
lar  contest  thus  far  fought  in  the  City; 2  the  vote  was  very 
heavy,  from  fifteen  to  twenty  thousand  above  that  cast  in 
the  state  election  a  month  previous,  and  after  making  allow 
ance  for  the  number  absent  in  the  army,  rivaling  the  presi 
dential  vote  of  1860.  Because  of  the  overwhelming  senti 
ment  in  favor  of  supporting  the  administration,  there  had 
been  apathy,  especially  in  the  Democratic  ranks,  during  the 
state  canvass;  while  this  local  contest  aroused  more  interest. 
Opdyke  led  with  25,380  votes  to  24,767  for  Gunther  and 
24,167  for  Wood.3  This  was  at  the  best  only  a  partial 
check  to  the  corrupt  elements.  Both  branches  of  the  muni- 

1  Herald,  Dec.  8.    "  He  [Opdyke]  lost  a  good  many  Republican  votes 
—some  because  he  was  deemed  an  abolitionist— some  because  he  was 
not  an  abolitionist  ..."  (Tribune,  Dec.  4). 

2  Tribune,  Dec.  4. 

s  Tribune  Almanac  for  1862. 


HEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [378 

cipal  law-making  body  were  politically  opposed  to  the  new 
mayor,  and  it  was  there  that  the  ring  had  already  gained  a 
firm  hold.  Though  Opclyke  steadily  opposed  dishonesty 
and  extravagance,  New  York  City  had  to  wait  until  condi 
tions  became  still  worse  before  relief  came  at  the  beginning 
of  the  next  decade. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862 

A  NOTEWORTHY  feature  of  New  York  politics  during  1862 
was  the  contrast  between  the  comparative  calm  which  pre 
vailed  during  the  first  half  of  the  year,  including  the  months 
when  the  Legislature  was  in  session,  and  the  fierce  partisan 
spirit  which  was  evident  after  August.  In  other  years,  the 
Legislature  was  usually  a  party  battle  ground.1  But  the 
session  of  1862  was  remarkable  for  a  paucity  of  party  mani 
festations.2  Then,  too,  the  intestine  dissensions  in  which 
the  Democracy  of  New  York  City  had  long  been  involved 
because  of  the  rivalries  of  Tammany  and  Mozart,  died  down 
after  the  charter  election  of  1861.  Even  the  war  of  edi 
torials  between  Greeley  and  Weed  entered  upon  a  period  of 

1  A.  Lawrence  Lowell  in  a  paper  entitled  "  The  Influence  of  Party 
upon    Legislation "    (American    Historical    Association    Report,    1901, 
i»  P-  338)  says :  "  In  New  York  alone  among  the  States  considered  is 
the   amount   of   party   voting   considerable.     Here   the    proportion    of 
party  votes  is  about  25  or  30  per  cent  in  the  senate  and  45  or  50  per 
cent  in  the  assembly;  and  there  is  no  great  difference  in  this  respect 
between   the  sessions   of    1894   and   1899.  .  .  .  Party  politics   in   New 
York  have  always  run  high,  and  the  people  have  always  been  divided 
evenly  enough  to  keep  party  strife  keen.    At  the  same  time  great  size 
has  made  more  possible  than  elsewhere  a  real  party  division  upon  State 
issues  instead  of  upon  national  ones  alone;  ..." 

2  Senator  Bell,  on  taking  the  chair  in  the  absence  of  the  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  said :  "  History  does  not  record,  or  my  memory  fails  to  re 
call,   a  period   so   free   from  party   feeling   and  party   strife."    This, 
however,   was  perhaps   an  exaggeration.    Certainly,  the  Argus   from 
time  to  time  stirred  up  the  partisan  waters. 

379]  179 


NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [380 

truce.  This  cessation  in  great  part  of  the  old  spirit  was  a 
natural  result  of  the  gigantic  contest  in  which  the  best 
energy  of  the  country  was  absorbed  and  of  the  overwhelm 
ing  victory  of  the  Union  ticket  in  1861. 

The  Legislature  of  1862  was  ranked  high  for  the  ability 
and  honesty  of  its  members.  The  Assembly  contained  a  dis 
tinguished  group  of  administration  supporters,  which  em 
braced  Messrs.  Stetson  and  Pringle  who  had  served  in  Con 
gress,  Messrs.  Hulburd,  Ogden,  and  Alvord  who  had  been 
members  of  previous  legislatures,  and  Henry  J.  Raymond 
who  had  been  speaker  of  the  assembly  and  later,  as  lieuten 
ant-governor,  had  presided  over  the  upper  house.  In  the 
state  Senate  of  1862,  ten  of  the  members  had  been  elected 
as  straight  Republicans,  twelve  as  Union  Republicans,  three 
as  Union  Democrats,  and  seven  as  Democrats.  Thus,  fifteen 
were  chosen  on  Union  tickets;  twenty-two  had  been  Re 
publicans,  and  ten  had  been  Democrats.  In  the  Assembly, 
there  were  twenty-seven  straight  Republicans,  thirty-eight 
Union  Republicans,  twenty-nine  Union  Democrats,  and 
thirty-three  straight  Democrats.  Of  one  hundred  and 
twenty-seven  members  (there  being  one  vacancy),  sixty- 
seven  were  elected  on  Union  tickets ;  sixty-five  were  of  Re 
publican  antecedents,  and  sixty-two  Democratic.1  Thus,  the 
majority  in  both  houses  was  composed  of  men  whose  affili 
ations  had  been  with  the  Republicans.  Yet  that  party  was 
then  young  and  its  component  elements  were  still  traceable. 
Hence  there  were  some  interesting  combinations  possible. 
Would  the  straight  Republicans  continue  to  act  with  all  the 
Union  members;  or  would  the  Republicans,  straight  and 
Union,  combine  and  repel  the  Union  Democrats  ?  The  Re 
publicans  at  the  preceding  election  had  advocated  drop 
ping  party  questions  and  standing  upon  the  single  issue 

1  Herald,  Jan.  6. 


381]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862  jgi 

of  supporting  the  administration.  The  Union  Democrats 
had  been  chosen  on  the  same  platform.1  Would  the  move 
ment  for  a  Union  party  continue,  or  would  the  old  lines  of 
division  reappear? 

The  question  came  to  a  head  with  the  calling  of  a  caucus 
to  select  a  candidate  for  speaker.  The  prominent  names 
mentioned  for  the  place  were  Raymond  of  New  York, 
Calvin  T.  Hulburd  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  Thomas  G.  Alvord 
of  Onondaga.  The  first  was  a  Weed  Republican,  the  sec 
ond  a  Republican  of  Barnburner  Democratic  origin,  and  the 
last  a  Union  Democrat.  Personality  and  considerations  of 
future  policy,  however,  quite  broke  down  factional  lines.2 
It  is  curious  to  note  that  Raymond,  in  spite  of  Seward's  and 
Weed's  attitude  on  radical  measures  and  his  connection  with 
them,  attracted  members  favoring  emancipation.  But  in 
general,  Raymond's  strength  came  from  the  followers  of 
Weed.8  The  anti-Raymond  men  issued  a  caucus  call  invit 
ing  all  members  of  the  Assembly  who  favored  sustaining 
the  government  in  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  to  put 
down  the  rebellion  and  maintain  the  Union,  and  who  were 
opposed  to  partial  and  unjust  legislation  and  to  corruption 
in  high  places.4  This  would  not  only  permit  all  Union  mem 
bers,  Republicans  or  Democrats,  to  take  part;  it  was  broad 
enough  to  let  in  the  straight  Democrats  who  might  have  joined 
in  bringing  about  the  nomination  of  a  man  like  Alvord. 
That  such  an  occurrence  was  a  possibility,'  was  shown  not 
only  by  the  facts  that  no  Democratic  caucus  had  yet  been 
called  and  that  party  feeling  was  relatively  low,  but  also  by 

1  Herald,  Jan.  6.  z  Tribune,  Jan.  6. 

8  Herald,  Jan.  5. 

*  Printed  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  4.  The  Journal  ques 
tioned  the  authority  of  this  call  because  the  document  was  anonymous 
and  because  so  few  members  had  as  yet  arrived. 


YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [382 

the  resolution  of  Mr.  Ogden  referred  to  below.  Raymond's 
followers  in  reply  issued  a  call  worded  the  same  as  the 
previous  one  except  that  only  those  who  supported  the 
Union  ticket  of  1861  were  invited.  Both  documents  named 
the  assembly  chamber  and  the  6th  of  January  as  the  place 
and  time,  but  the  Raymond  men  were  to  meet  two  hours 
before  their  opponents.1 

Thereupon,  the  friends  of  Alvord  and  Hulburd  gath 
ered  in  a  preliminary  meeting  at  four  o'clock,  three  hours  be 
fore  the  time  set  for  their  caucus  and  one  hour  before  that  of 
Raymond's  adherents  was  to  meet.  There  were  thus  two 
caucuses,  one  at  four  and  the  other  at  five  o'clock.  The 
Raymond  call  had  but  thirty-one  names,  far  less  than 
was  necessary  for  an  election;  nor  were  the  Alvord-Hul- 
burd  men,  even  if  united  upon  one  of  their  number,  sufficient 
to  elect.  Though  Raymond's  chances  seemed  at  the  start 
the  best,2  there  was  a  fair  prospect  that  neither  caucus  would 
represent  a  majority  of  the  House,  unless  some  straight 
Democrats  were  induced  to  answer  one  of  the  calls,3  and 
that  the  matter  would  have  to  be  settled  by  a  contest  in  the 
Assembly  itself.4  But  the  anti-Raymond  men  accomplished 
nothing,  and  at  the  hour  set  for  the  Raymond  caucus  ad 
journed.  They  did  not,  however,  withdraw,  perhaps  think 
ing  to  beat  Raymond  among  his  own  friends.5  Thus  the 
two  caucuses  blended  into  one  composed  of  Republicans, 
Union  Republicans  and  Union  Democrats.6  The  question 

1  The  Raymond  call  is  printed  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  6. 

2  Herald,  Jan.  6 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  6. 

3  Tribune,  Jan.  6. 

4  Herald,  Jan.  6;  Argus,  Jan.  8. 

5  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  7 ;  Herald,  Jan.  7,  8. 
*  Tribune,  Jan.  7 ;  Herald,  Jan.  7. 


383]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862 

as  to  who  might  vote  was  at  once  brought  up.  Mr.  Ogden, 
a  Union  Democrat,  offered  a  resolution  that  "  all  members 
elected  to  the  legislature  who  favor  sustaining  the  govern 
ment  in  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  to  put  down  the 
rebellion  and  save  the  Union,  and  who  are  opposed  to  un 
just,  partial  legislation  and  corruption  in  high  or  low 
places,  be  invited  to  take  seats."  Ogden  and  Stetson,  an 
other  Union  Democrat,  spoke  for  the  resolution;  Raymond 
and  Pierce  against  it,  arguing  that  support  of  the  Union 
state  ticket  as  well  as  of  the  national  administration  be  made 
the  test.  After  a  lengthy  debate,  the  resolution  was  lost, 
16  to  6I.1 

The  balloting  for  speaker  then  followed  with  this  result : 
Raymond  (Republican)  29,  Hulburd  (Republican)  17, 
Rice  (Republican)  12,  Alvord  (Union  Democrat)  8,  Pierce 
(Union  Republican)  7,  Ogden  (Union  Democrat)  5,  scat 
tering  or  blank  4.  Ogden,  Alvord,  and  Rice  then  withdrew 
their  names.  On  the  second  ballot,  Raymond  had  47  votes 
to  37  for  Hulburd.  Raymond's  nomination  was  then  made 
unanimous.2  The  Union  Democrats  were  consoled  with  the 
clerkship.3  On  the  next  day  the  straight  Democrats,  who 
seemed  to  have  been  waiting  for  an  advantageous  offer,  went 
through  the  formality  of  making  caucus  nominations.4 
When  the  Assembly  met  on  January  7th  to  organize,  Ray 
mond  was  chosen  speaker,  receiving  88  votes  to  36  for 
Horatio  Seymour  of  Erie  (not  the  former  governor).  All 
the  members  of  Republican  antecedents,  whether  elected  on 
straight  or  Union  tickets,  and  nearly  all  of  the  Union  Demo- 

1  Herald,  Jan.  7 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  7. 

2  Herald,  Jan.  7 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  7. 

3  Herald,  Jan.  8. 

*  Tribune,  Jan.  7 ;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  7. 


!84       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [-584 

crats  voted  for  Raymond.1  In  the  Senate,  all  of  the  Union 
members  acted  with  the  Republicans  in  caucus.2  Thus,  the 
session  began  with  harmony  between  the  Republicans  and 
the  Union  men. 

Even  in  this  exceptionally  peaceful  session,  the  irrepres 
sible  question  caused  some  party  debates.  Soon  after  the 
organization  of  the  House,  a  Democratic  caucus  decided  to 
support  the  President  and  to  uphold  his  conservative  policy 
against  abolitionist  generals.  A  committee  of  five  to  draft 
resolutions  was  appointed,  but  nothing  came  of  this.3  In 
the  Assembly  a  resolution,  favoring  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia  brought  on  a  partisan  skirmish/ 
The  Democrats  opposed  the  resolution  on  the  ground  that 
the  Legislature  had  little  enough  time  to  attend  to  its  own 
business  without  meddling  with  that  of  Congress.  One 
Union  Democrat,  desiring  to  put  the  abolitionists  on  record, 
moved  an  amendment  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  slavery 
south  5  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  A  Democrat  moved 
the  previous  question.  The  Republicans  were  able  to  de 
feat  this,  and  on  motion  of  one  of  them,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  committee  on  federal  relations,  not  to  be 
heard  of  again.0  In  the  Senate,  the  straight  Democratic 
minority  was  small;  but  it  failed  to  show  even  its  full 
strength  or  to  attract  any  of  the  Union  Democrats  in  op 
posing  a  resolution  approving  the  President's  message 

1  Assembly  Journal  1862,  p.  6. 

2  Herald,  Jan.  7. 

3  Herald,  Jan.  15. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1862,  p.  480. 

5  The  Assembly  Journal,  p.  481,  says  "  north  " ;  but  this  is  evidently 
a  misprint.     This  supposition  is  confirmed  by  the  reports  in  the  Herald 
and  Tribune  (Mar.  18). 

6  Herald,  Mar.  18;  Argus,  Mar.  19;  Assembly  Journal,  1862,  p.  481. 


THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862  185 

recommending  compensated  emancipation.1  Senator  Pruyn, 
a  Democrat,  declared  the  message  ill-timed  and  injudicious, 
and  wished  to  have  the  resolution  sent  to  a  special  com 
mittee.  But  the  greatest  number  of  votes  the  Democrats 
could  muster  against  the  resolution  was  three;  and  on  the 
final  passage,  it  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  twenty-six  to  one 
—all  the  Union  Democrats  and  five  straight  Democrats 
voting  aye.2 

A  joint  resolution  instructing  the  United  States  senators 
from  New  York  to  vote  for  the  expulsion  of  Mr.  Bright  of 
Indiana  3  developed  something  like  a  party  alignment.  Sen 
ator  Harris,  to  the  disgust  of  some  New  York  Republicans, 
had  taken  a  stand  against  expulsion.  Hence  the  resolu 
tions  in  the  Legislature.  The  Republicans,  however,  were 
not  unanimous  on  this  question.  Some  joined  with  the 
Democrats  in  maintaining  that  the  Bright  affair  was  a 
purely  judicial  matter,  about  which  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  knew  nothing  but  rumors.4  Substitute  resolu 
tions  merely  expressing  the  opinion  that  Bright  was  a 
traitor  and  ought  to  be  expelled  were  adopted  in  the  Senate 
by  a  party  vote.5  Before  the  Assembly  took  action,  Bright 
on  the  5th  of  February  was  expelled.  One  of  New  Y~ork's 
senators,  Preston  King,  voted  for  expulsion ;  while  the  other, 
Ira  Harris,  voted  against  it.  Some  days  later,  the  resolu 
tions  were  called  up  in  the  Assembly  and  amended  to  fit  the 
circumstances.  The  pleasure  of  the  New  York  Legislature 
at  Bright's  expulsion  was  expressed,  and  Senator  King  was 

1  For  this,  see  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  iii,  pp.  631-3 ; 
Richardson's  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vi,  pp.  68,  69.    ' 

2  Tribune,  April  4;  Argus,  April  4;  Senate  Journal,  1862,  p.  433. 

3  For  this  affair,  see  the  Annual  Cyclopedia  for  1862,  pp.  331-2. 

4  Herald,  Jan.  31 ;  Argus,  Feb.  i. 

5  Senate  Journal,  1862,  p.  121. 


186       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [386 

thanked.  In  the  debate  which  followed,  the  Democrats  were 
aided  by  some  of  the  Republicans,  who  thought  the  resolu 
tions  useless  and  an  implied  censure  on  Senator  Harris. 
Indeed  so  many  of  the  majority  acted  on  this  occasion  with 
the  Democrats  that  only  the  Speaker's  casting  vote  pre 
vented  the  matter  from  being  laid  on  the  table,  and  finally 
the  House  adjourned  without  taking  any  action  on  the  sub 
ject.1 

We  may  conclude  that  the  session  of  1862  was  notable 
for  a  lack  of  partisan  debates  and  divisions.  Hence,  the 
Tribune  correspondent  wrote :  "  It  is  a  difficult  question  to 
classify  members  politically  now,  as  some  seem  to  have  no 
politics  at  all  and  others  '  none  to  speak  of/  '  The  Her 
ald  correspondent  wrote  at  the  close  of  the  session  : 

The  Legislature  proceeded  quite  harmoniously  in  its  business 
throughout  the  session.  There  has  been  no  great  question 
upon  which  the  leaders  on  each  side  arrayed  themselves  and 
sounded  the  party  call  for  their  followers.  Everything  that 
has  approximated  [to]  a  party  movement  has  been  simply  a 
struggle  between  the  two  great  wings  of  the  Republican  party.8 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Democrats  made  no  opposition  to 
what  might  be  called  war  measures  ;4  military  bills,  including 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1862,  pp.  279,  280;  Herald,  Feb.  16;  Argus,  Feb. 
19.  In  the  Assembly,  an  amendment  to  the  state  constitution  pro 
hibiting  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  38 
to  73.  While  nearly  all.  the  Democrats  voted  against  the  amendment, 
the  division  was  not  a  party  one;  for  nearly  all  the  New  York  City 
and  Brooklyn  Republicans  voted  nay.  It  was  rather  a  case  of  city 
against  country  (Assembly  Journal,  1862,  p.  516). 

*  Tribune,  Jan.  16. 

3  Herald,  April  27 ;  similar  editorial  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal, 
April  23,  which  said,  "...  party  spirit  was  seldom  exhibited,  and 
mere  party  discussions  were  commendably  rare." 

*  " .  .  .  whatever  measures  were  deemed  necessary  to  strengthen  the 


387]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862  187 

one  for  the  reorganization  of  the  militia,  went  through 
smoothly;1  and  there  was  evinced  a  disposition  on  the  part 
of  the  opposition  freely  to  give  New  York's  share  to  the 
financial  support  of  the  war.2 

This  general  calm  was,  however,  somewhat  disturbed  by 
the  personal  rivalries  which  developed  within  the  majority 
of  the  Assembly.  Their  first  appearance  we  have  seen  in 
the  contest  for  the  speakership.  They  came  up  again  dur 
ing  an  exciting  debate  on  the  question  of  taxation,  and  re 
sulted  in  a  verbal  duel  between  Raymond  on  the  one  hand 
and  Hulburd,  Pierce,  and  Alvord  on  the  other.  Congress 
was  still  considering  the  subject,  and  it  was  thought  by 
some  that  the  voice  of  New  York  in  favor  of  taxation  would 
have  a  decided  influence  upon  the  lawmakers  at  Washington. 
So  the  Assembly  committee  on  ways  and  means  reported 
resolutions  favoring  the  apportionment  among  the  states  of 
a  direct  tax  sufficient  for  and  pledged  to  the  payment  of  the 
interest  on  the  entire  debt  of  the  national  government; 
further,  they  urged  that  ten  million  dollars  of  the  amount 
to  be  derived  from  the  income  tax  be  set  aside  and  pledged 
as  a  sinking  fund  to  the  payment  of  the  principal  of  the  debt ; 
the  resolutions  also  condemned  the  unrestricted  emission  of 
paper  money  "  vainly  bolstered  up  by  making  it  a  legal  ten 
der  between  debtor  and  creditor,  and  without  proper  and 

hands  of  the  State  or  of  the  General  Government  in  the  present  crisis 
were  cordially  concurred  in.  Intense  loyalty  predominated;  and  not  a 
whisper  has  been  heard  through  the  entire  session,  of  sympathy  with 
treason  or  traitors"  (Albany  Evening  Journal,  April  23). 

1  Herald,  April  27;  Assembly  Journal,  1862,  pp.  528,  733,  1074;  Senate 
Journal,  1862,  pp.  623,  640. 

z  Herald,  April  28;  Argus,  Jan.  27.  A  concurrent  resolution  in  favor 
of  the  State  assuming  the  collection  of  its  quota  of  the  national  land  tax 
of  twenty  million  dollars  was  adopted  unanimously  and  with  no  de 
bate  (Assembly  Journal,  1862,  pp.  79,  80;  Senate  Journal,  1862,  p.  59). 


!88       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [388 

adequate  provision  for  the  redemption  of  the  same."  *  The 
ideas  set  forth  in  these  resolutions  were  in  accord  with 
the  financial  maxims  of  those  Republicans  who  had  once 
been  Barnburner  Democrats.  Messrs.  Stetson,  Pierce, 
and  Hulburd  were  conspicuous  representatives  of  this 
class  in  the  Assembly.  Mr.  Hulburd,  the  chairman  of 
the  ways  and  means  committee,  delivered  an  able  speech 
in  support  of  the  policy  advocated  by  the  resolutions. 
Raymond,  in  a  two-hour  speech,  supported  an  issue  of 
legal  tender  treasury  notes,  arguing  that  the  plan  of  pay- 
as-you-go  was  impracticable  for  the  federal  government 
in  its  then  existing  circumstances;  and  he  charged  those 
who  opposed  this  policy  with  blocking  the  administration 
and  with  tending  to  disloyalty.  In  reply,  Hulburd,  Pierce, 
and  Alvord  took  issue  with  Raymond  and  assailed  him  se 
verely.2  Raymond's  substitute  resolutions  finally  received  but 
43  votes  to  69  against  them.3  The  resolutions  of  the  com 
mittee  on  ways  and  means  were  then  passed  by  a  vote  of  79 
to  28. 4  They  failed,  however,  to  get  through  the  Senate.6 
During  the  debate  the  straight  Democrats  merely  looked 
on,  giving  room  for  any  possible  schism  to  develop  in  the 
majority.8 

1  Printed  in  the  Argus,  Jan.  25. 

2  Herald,  Jan.  30;  Argus,  Jan.  30. 

3  Assembly  Journal,  1862,  p.  173. 
Assembly  Journal,  1862,  p.  175. 

Referred  to  the  finance  committee,  Senate  Journal,  1862,  p.  119;  no 
further  reference. 

6  "  It  was  pleasant  to  see  every  member  of  the  Assembly  who  had 
ever  belonged  to  the  Democratic  party  (with  hardly  an  exception — 
not  more  than  one  or  two  we  believe)  come  up  boldly  to  the  support 
of  the  resolutions  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  ...  We  say 
it  was  a  pleasant  sight,  the  reunion  of  legislators  upon  an  old  and 
honored  platform  of  principle  ...  in  favor  of  a  great  principle  of 
government,  long  ago  baptized  and  matured  by  the  old  Democratic 
party"  (Argus,  Feb.  3).  According  to  the  Herald  (Feb.  i),  forty- 


389]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862  189 

The  contest  for  personal  supremacy  broke  out  again  when 
the  bill  for  harbor  defenses  was  being  considered.  Such  a 
measure  was  reported  from  the  committee  on  the  militia,  of 
which  Mr.  Pierce  was  chairman ;  and  Hulburd  made  the  first 
speech  in  favor  of  it.  Alvord  argued  against  its  constitu 
tionality,  and  prepared  a  substitute  providing  for  harbor 
defense,  but  under  the  national  government's  direction. 
This  was  acceded  to  by  Hulburd  and  Pierce.  Raymond 
then  made  a  speech  against  the  bill,  and  succeeded  in  tem 
porarily  burying  it.  Two  weeks  later,  he  offered  a  substi 
tute  of  his  own.  This  renewed  the  personal  battle  between 
Raymond  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  majority.1  The 
Tribune  correspondent  wrote  that  there  was  "  a  contest  for 
supremacy  in  the  Assembly,  which  is  the  real  issue  dis 
guised  by  the  several  defence  projects;"  and  that  the  ques 
tion  "  has  been  a  hobby  on  which  several  parties  have  striven 
to  ride  into  position  here  and  elsewhere."  The  Herald  cor 
respondent  pronounced  it  "  a  contest  as  to  whose  bill  should 
pass — a  personal  affair  altogether."  Raymond's  bill  finally 
passed  the  Assembly,2  but  died  in  the  Senate — not  however 
through  Democratic  opposition,  but  through  jealousy  among 
the  majority  over  the  patronage  involved.3 

eight  of  those  who  up  to  this  point  had  acted  with  the  majority,  voted 
against  Raymond's  substitute;  twenty  of  the  forty-eight  were  classed 
as  one  time  Barnburners  and  an  equal  number  as  former  Hunkers. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1862,  pp.  214,  506;  Herald,  Mar.  22;  Tribune,  Mar. 
22,  26;  Argus,  Mar.  i,  4,  6,  7,  21,  28.    (Raymond's  substitute  provided 
for  a  commission   authorized  to  purchase  cannon,   etc.,   and   to   take 
such  other  measures  as  might  be  deemed  necessary  to  aid  the  general 
government  in  protecting  the  harbor  and  City  of  New  York,  and  ap 
propriated  one  million  dollars  therefor. 

2  Assembly  Journal,  1862,  p.  651. 

3  Motion  to  order  the  bill  to  a  third  reading  defeated,  Senate  Journal, 
1862,  p.  686.     Raymond's  bill  made  the  commission  consist  of  the  Gov 
ernor,  Major  Delafield,  and  Mr.  Craven;  but  when,  in  the  Senate,  it 


I90       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [390 

There  was  trouble  brewing  within  the  Republican  ranks 
in  another  direction  also,  but  tending  toward  the  same  end 
—preparing  the  way  for  future  struggles  between  the 
Greeley  and  the  Weed-Seward  wings.  Mayor  Opdyke  of 
New  York  City,  who  belonged  to  the  former  faction,  wanted 
certain  bills  passed.  In  brief,  he  desired  more  power.  In 
order  to  hit  Fernando  Wood,  the  mayor  of  the  metropolis 
had  been  reduced  almost  to  a  figurehead.  But  many 
thought  that  there  was  no  longer  any  reason  for  this,  now 
that  Wood  was  out  of  office.  Despite  the  fact  that  Ray 
mond  had  been  supported  by  Opdyke  in  the  speakership  con 
test,  the  former,  it  was  said,  had  arranged  the  committee  on 
cities  so  that  all  the  Republicans  on  it  belonged  to  the  Weed 
wing.  Opdyke  went  up  to  Albany  to  oppose  the  metro 
politan  health  bill.  Thereupon,  the  Times,  Raymond's 
paper,  came  out  with  the  remark,  "  The  public  will  hear 
with  amazement  that  Mr.  Opdyke  has  been  at  Albany  op 
posing  this  bill."  The  Tribune  took  up  the  cudgels  in  Op- 
dyke's  behalf.1  The  Times  then  turned  its  guns  upon  the 
Tribune.  ''  The  Tribune/'  it  said,  "  betrays  its  own  motive. 
...  Its  determination  is  to  defeat  this  bill  unless  it  can 
secure  for  the  Mayor  and  his  immediate  friends,  the  political 
power  which  it  attributes  to  the  bill.  Wre  regard  this  .  .  . 
as  sacrificing  every  consideration  of  the  public  good  to  the 

was  proposed  to  make  the  Governor,  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  and  the 
Comptroller  (the  latter  two  being  strongly  anti-Weed  men)  con 
stitute  the  commission,  the  original  friends  of  the  bill  abandoned  it, 
and  it  was  lost  (Argus,  April  24;  Herald,  April  27). 

1  Tribune,  April  15.  The  Argus,  whether  to  stir  up  trouble  or  not, 
practically  confirmed  the  Tribune's  charge  that  the  original  bill  was  so 
drawn  as  to  fill  the  city  offices  as  far  as  possible  with  men  animated  by 
hostility  to  the  Mayor  and  his  friends,  and  said  that  Opdyke  was 
therefore  justified  in  opposing  the  measure  (Argus,  April  15). 


391]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862  IOyi 

base  malignity  of  a  faction."  *  In  the  end,  Opdyke,  the 
Tribune,  and  their  adherents  succeeded  in  partially  accom 
plishing  their  purpose,  for  the  Senate  so  changed  the  con 
trol  of  the  patronage  involved  in  the  bill,  that  the  original 
supporters  of  the  measure  dropped  it.2  But  on  the  other 
hand,  no  amendment  to  the  charter  of  New  York  City  was 
passed  and  Opdyke  obtained  no  increase  of  power.3 

Meanwhile,  the  Democrats  watched  the  development  of 
these  rivalries  and  waited  for  the  threatened  split  between 
the  Republicans  and  those  elected  on  Union  tickets,  par 
ticularly  the  Union  Democrats.  The  Regency  organ,  the 
Albany  Argus,  emphasized  the  differences  among  the 
members  of  the  majority,  and  dwelt  upon  the  dissatis 
faction  of  the  Weed  men  and  the  prospect  of  a  rupture 
between  the  latter  and  those  Republicans  who  favored 
the  Union  movement.4  The  New  York  World  had  a 
similar  article.5  The  hopes  of  the  Democrats,  however, 
were  not  realized.  We  have  seen  that,  in  general,  those 
elected  to  the  Legislature  on  Union  tickets  acted  quite  stead 
ily  with  the  Republicans. 

Yet,  during  the  winter,  traces  of  a  determination  to  run 
a  straight  ticket  and  to  "  go  it  alone  "  were  evident  among 
the  members  of  the  Seward-Weed  faction.  Weed,  who  had 
favored  the  Union  movement,  was  in  Europe.  In  his  ab 
sence,  George  Dawson,  for  the  time  the  principal  editor  of 

1  New  York  Times,  April  16. 

2  Argus,  April  24.    The  bill  passed  the  Assembly  (Journal,  p.  765). 
In  the  Senate,  the  last  heard  of  the  measure  was  a  committee  report 
in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  Assembly  bill  with  amendments  (Senate 
Journal,  1862,  p.  593). 

3  Herald,  April  24. 

4  Argus,  Feb.  21,  24,  28,  Mar.  6,  8,  10,  17,  21,  24,  25,  28. 

5  World,  Mar.  31.    The  World  became  in  1862  a  Democratic  paper. 


I92       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [392 

the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  came  out  in  February  in  favor 
of  the  preservation  of  the  Republican  organization  and  with 
an  implied  aversion  to  a  renewal  of  the  fusion  of  I86I.1 
The  Buffalo  Express?  the  Oswego  Times,3  the  Syracuse 

1 "...  no  true  Republican  will  censure  the  true  men  of  Onondaga 
or  of  any  other  county,  because  they  present  straight  tickets.  ...  If, 
by  the  overwhelming  expression  of  public  sentiment  secured  by  that 
union  [i.  e.  the  fusion  of  '61],  limping  patriots  have  been  brought 
into  line,  all  that  was  desired  was  accomplished,  and  no  detriment  will 
accrue  to  the  country  if,  hereafter,  parties  assume  their  original 
position." — Albany  Evening  Journal,  Feb.  19.  "  Now,  as  last  fall,  the 
Democracy  want  to  come  in  under  the  Union  dodge  in  strong  Republi 
can  towns,  while  they  keep  up  their  own  organization  where  they 
have  numerical  strength.  The  best  way  is  to  preserve  the  Republican 
organization  intact  by  nominating  Republican  tickets  wherever  there 
are  Republicans  enough  to  hold  a  caucus  "—Albany  Evening  Journal, 
Feb.  20.  In  April,  however,  this  paper,  while  insisting  that  the  Re 
publican  organization  should  be  preserved,  was  willing  to  act  during 
the  war  with  those  who  thought  alike  on  the  latter  subject.— Albany 
Evening  Journal,  April  9. 

*  "  In  the  so-called  Union  which  characterized  the  last  State  election, 
the  Republican  party  was  made  to  suffer  severely  from  disorganiza 
tion  and  consequent  impaired  strength.  The  '  Union '  as  it  was 
called,  was  not  as  potent  as  the  Republican  organization  would  have 
been,  if  left  to  assert  its  power  distinctly  in  the  contest  ...  the  ef 
fect  of  that  so-called  Union  was  nevertheless  a  local  disaster,  in  a 
majority  of  instances  where  it  was  depended  upon  .  .  .  the  partner 
ship  worked  very  well  for  the  Democratic  side.  They  furnished  the 
candidates,  while  the  Republicans  furnished  the  votes.  .  .  .  The  im 
mediate  effect  was  disaster,  and  the  more  remote  consequence,  a  dis 
organization  and  paralysis,  from  which  the  Republican  party  must 
recover  soon,  or  never  ...  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  those  who 
desire  to  sustain  a  Republican  administration  of  the  government  to 
rally  under  the  banner  of  that  party  which  took  power  in  the  govern 
ment  from  Democratic  hands,  .  .  .  Those  who  are  not  for  the  Republican 
organization  are  against  it."— Buffalo  Express,  quoted  in  the  Albany 
Argus,  Mar.  17. 

3  "  We  beg  leave  to  say  that  if  any  fusion  is  got  up  on  the  model  of 
last  Fall  (which  lost  us  a  Canal  Commissioner  and  filled  the  Assembly 
with  an  uncertain  and  unreliable  element),  those  who  concoct  it  must 
count  Oswego  out  of  the  bargain.  We  have  had  quite  enough  of 


393]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862 

Journal?  the  Livingston  Republican,2  and  the  Rochester 
Express 3  bitterly  denounced  fusion,  and  insisted  on  main 
taining  the  Republican  party  organization  and  waging  the 
forthcoming  battle  under  its  banner.  The  Republican  State 
Committee  was  in  the  control  of  the  Seward-Weed  men.4 
Toward  the  end  of  March,  the  executive  committee  of  that 
body,  at  whose  head  was  a  stanch  Weed  adherent,  Simeon 
Draper,  adopted  resolutions5  which  included  the  following: 
'*  That  the  Republican  party  recognize  in  the  cooperation 
of  the  pure  and  patriotic  men  who  have  united  with  it  in 
sharing  the  burdens  and  defending  the  principles  of  the 
administration  of  the  national  government,  a  disinterested 
love  of  country  outweighing  the  trammels  of  party  organi 
zation  ...  ;"  and  that  the  executive  committee  "  earnestly 
request  early  action  for  the  organization  of  the  republican 
party  for  the  protection  of  its  principles,  the  efficiency  of 
its  labor,  and  its  future  success  in  maintaining  the  dearest 
principles  that  belong  to  an  American  citizen.  .  .  ."  The 
first  quoted  resolution,  standing  alone,  might  have  been 
interpreted  as  an  invitation  to  repeat  the  experiment  of  the 
previous  year ;  but  the  other  resolution  destroyed  this  effect, 
and  taken  in  connection  with  the  sentiments  published  in  a 
portion  of  the  Republican  press,  certainly  gave  color  to  the 

fusion.  .  .  .  We  have  done  with  this  business  of  hiring  men  to  be 
loyal  with  gifts  of  office.— Stand  by  the  Republican  banner !"— Oswego 
Times,  quoted  in  the  Albany  Argus,  Mar.  28.  Another  similar  extract 
from  the  same  paper  is  in  the  Albany  Argus,  Feb.  24. 

1  Quoted  in  the  Albany  Argus,  Mar.  8,  28. 

8  Quoted  in  the  Argus,  Mar.  10. 

8  Quoted  in  the  Argus,  Feb.  28,  Mar.  8. 

*  Argus,  April  n,  confirmed  by  Thurlow  Weed's  bitter  objections  to 
the  committee  chosen  in  1862  (see  infra}. 

6  Printed  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Mar.  22. 


YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [394 

interpretation  of  the  resolutions  given  by  the  Democrats  * 
— that  they  pointed  to  the  revival  of  the  Republican  organi 
zation  and  to  a  repudiation  of  the  People's  or  Union  move 
ment. 

There  were  others,  however,  both  in  and  out  of  the  Legis 
lature,  who  wished  to  continue  the  union  of  all  supporters 
of  the  administration.  The  maintenance  of  such  an  ar 
rangement  during  the  war,  upon  the  same  broad  basis  as 
that  of  1 86 1,  was  unanimously  endorsed  at  a  consultation 
held  by  a  number  of  legislators  about  the  end  of  March 
or  the  beginning  of  April.  Daniel  S.  Dickinson  was  re 
quested  to  draw  up  an  address  to  be  signed  by  the  law 
makers.  Such  a  document,  containing  the  ideas  set  forth 
by  the  People's  Convention  of  1861,  inviting  the  coopera 
tion  of  "  all  Union  men,  irrespective  of  former  or  pres 
ent  political  designation  or  shades  of  opinion,"  and  call 
ing  a  caucus  on  April  loth,  was  written  by  Dickinson,  and 
circulated  among  some  of  the  legislators.2  The  organiza 
tion  Republicans  thereupon  took  steps  to  control  any  action 
that  might  be  taken,  by  calling  a  caucus  on  April  3d,  invit 
ing  only  those  who  had  supported  the  Union  ticket  of  1861. 

When  this  caucus  met,  the  Union  Democrats  showed  dis 
trust  by  not  answering  the  roll;  and  Messrs.  Alvord,  Stet- 

1  Argus,  Mar.  24;  New  York  World,  Mar.  31.    Daniel  S.  Dickinson 
put   the   same  interpretation   upon   the   resolutions — that   they   recom 
mended  "  strict  Republican  organization,  action,  etc."     (Letter  of  Dick 
inson  to  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  printed  in  the  issue  of  May  6). 

2  Letter  of  Dickinson  to  the  editors  of  the  Albany  Evening  Journal, 
printed  in  the  issue  of  May  6.     Dickinson's  address  is  printed  in  the 
same.     Letter    signed   "A    Republican   member   of   the    Assembly,"   in 
the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  April  28.    The  Journal  editorially  vouched 
for  the  account  given  in  this  letter  as  "  written  truthfully  and  im 
partially "  and  as  presenting  "all  the  leading  facts  precisely  as  they 
occurred."     Also,  Herald,  April  4. 


395]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862 

son,  Ogden  and  others  expressed  suspicions  as  to  the  objects 
of  the  gathering.  They  did  not  wish  to  be  committed  on 
political  issues  of  the  past.  Finally,  a  committee,  satisfac 
tory  to  the  Union  Democrats,  was  appointed  to  draft  reso 
lutions  and  an  address.  At  the  next  meeting  of  the  caucus 
on  the  loth,1  the  resolutions  and  address  were  discussed  and 
recommitted.  Raymond  then  proposed  that  a  state  conven 
tion  should  be  called  by  the  members  of  the  Legislature  who 
were  acting  together,  and  that  provision  should  be -made  at 
the  same  time  for  the  cooperation  of  other  organizations 
that  could  rightfully  be  consulted  in  such  a  movement.  In 
debate,  Raymond  explained  that  this  proposal  meant  con 
sultation  with  the  Republican  State  Committee  only.  Their 
principles,  he  said,  were  the  same  as  those  of  the  suggested 
resolutions  and  address,  and  their  aid  was  essential  to  suc 
cess.  With  the  Democratic  State  Committee,  he  had  no  de 
sire  to  confer.  Alvord,  on  the  other  hand,  wished  to  act 
independently  of  the  Republican  State  Committee.  During 
the  following  week,  drafts  of  the  address  by  Raymond  and 
by  Senator  Low  as  well  as  amendments  by  Alvord  were 
worked  over  by  a  sub-committee  consisting  of  Raymond  and 
Low.  At  Raymond's  suggestion,  a  recommendation  for 
merely  a  convention  was  made  without  designating  a  time 
or  place,  this  being  left  to  a  committee  which  was  to  consult 
with  and  unite  with  the  Republican  State  Committee  in  call 
ing  the  convention.  This  plan  avoided  the  embarrassment 
which  might  have  arisen  had  a  definite  date  and  locality 
been  set,  in  which  case  the  Republicans  would  have  had  the 
choice  of  following  the  lead  of  the  convention  thus  called 
or  of  acting  alone. 

1  As  the  Union  Democrats  participated  in  the  caucus  of  April  3d, 
the  caucus  proposed  in  the  Dickinson  call  was  not  held.  The  caucus 
which  did  occur  on  the  loth  arose  from  that  of  the  3d. 


I96       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [396 

At  the  caucus  of  April  i8th,  the  address  and  resolutions 
met  with  the  approval  of  all.  The  only  debate  which  arose 
concerned  the  call  to  be  issued — whether  it  should  invite  co 
operation  with  any  other  political  organization  or  with  the 
Republicans  alone.  Alvord  maintained  the  former,  Senator 
Cook  and  others  the  latter.  It  was  said  that  the  Repub 
lican  organization  should  not  be  ignored  even  by  implica 
tion.  Some  of  the  straight  Republicans  wanted  the  proposed 
committee  instructed  to  confer  with  the  Republican  State 
Committee.  To  express  this  openly,  however,  it  was 
claimed,  would  weaken  the  movement  and  give  it  a  partisan 
appearance.  Finally,  the  matter  was  compromised  by  in 
structing  the  new  committee  to  consult  with  "  the  committee 
of  any  organization  whose  cooperation  we  hope  to  obtain," 
thus  avoiding  the  use  of  the  word  "  Republican  "  and  at  the 
same  time  preventing  the  calling  of  an  anti-Republican 
Union  convention.  The  caucus  then  unanimously  adopted 
the  address  and  the  resolutions.  The  new  state  committee 
appointed  on  this  occasion  consisted  of  E.  J.  Brown,  Moses  H. 
Grinnell,  E.  M.  Madden,  J.  S.  T.  Stranahan,  C.  E.  R.  Lud- 
dington,  Lyman  Tremain,  Edward  Dodd,  R.  W.  Andrews, 
Alonzo  Wood,  Alexander  Campbell,  William  H.  Lucien,  D. 
L.  Follett,  J.  C.  Smith,  William  Bowdoin,  H.  C.  Rodgers, 
and  Thomas  T.  Flagler.1  A  majority  of  these  were  said  to  be 
anti-Weed  men,2  and  it  was  claimed  that  the  surrender  of 

1  All  of  the  above  particulars  relating  to  these  caucuses  are  based  on 
the   following:  Letter  of   "A   Republican  member  of  the  Assembly," 
ante;   letter  to  the   editors   of   the   Albany  Evening  Journal,   signed 
"A    Union    Democratic    Member    of    the    Assembly,"    in    the    Albany 
Evening  Journal,  May  i;  Herald,  April  11,  19;  Tribune,  April  21. 

2  Argus,  April  21 ;  Rochester  Daily  Union,  quoted  in  the  Argus,  April 

25- 


397]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862 

the  Weed-Seward  adherents  was  due  to  Raymond.1  When 
it  came  to  signing  the  address,  some  of  the  Republicans 
showed  hesitation.  A  straight  Republican  caucus  was  there 
fore  called  immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Legis 
lature;  and  as  a  result,  nearly  all  of  the  Republican  members 
signed.2  The  two  state  committees,  that  of  the  Republicans 
and  that  appointed  by  the  legislative  caucus,  thenceforth  co 
operated  in  arranging  for  the  meeting  of  a  state  convention. 
We  have  now  to  consider  the  Union  legislative  address 
and  the  appended  resolutions.  The  address  opened  with  a 
strong  plea  for  the  repression  of  party  and  for  a  united 
support  of  the  administration.  Referring  to  the  events  of 
1861,  it  said: 

In  this  State,  as  elsewhere,  the  popular  impulse  demanded  that 
patriotic  men  of  all  parties  should  lay  aside,  for  the  time,  all 
differences  of  political  sentiment  .  .  .  The  great  body  of  peo 
ple  were  ready  for  such  a  union,  and  nothing  but  the  obstinate 
resistance  of  a  powerful  organization  claiming  to  represent  the 
Democratic  party  and  controlling  all  its  organized  means  of 
action  stood  in  the  way  of  its  consummation. 

The  address  then  dwelt  on  the  example  of  the  previous  year, 
when  Republicans  and  Union  Democrats  united  in  many 
districts  in  choosing  legislative  candidates.  Those  elected 
thus  had  "  acted  together  as  Union  men,  ignoring  past  dif 
ferences  and  discarding  political  distinctions.  They  or- 

1  Argus,  April  21.  In  the  letter  signed  "A  Republican  member  of 
the  Assembly"  (referred  to  above),  Raymond  appears  as  a  harmonizer. 
Herald,  April  23;  Argus,  April  25.  The  Tribune  in  an  editorial  of 
April  2Qth  said:  "We  regret  that  a  few  firm  and  true  Republicans, 
including  several  leading  Senators,  have  not  yet  signed  the  Address, 
deeming  their  hesitation  required  by  fidelity  to  their  party."  The 
Argus  of  April  2Qth  gave  a  list  of  ten  senators  and  eleven  assembly 
men,  belonging  to  the  majority,  who  had  not  yet  signed  the  address. 


NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [398 

ganized  the  Assembly  on  this  basis  and  their  proceedings 
have  been  characterized  by  harmonious  cooperation.  .  .  . 
The  heart-burnings  and  bickerings  of  party  have  been  ban 
ished."  The  emergency  was  not  yet  past.  Many  great 
problems  arising  out  of  the  war  were  still  to  be  solved,  and 
they  would  "  require  the  united  efforts  ...  for  years  to 
come,  of  all  true,  loyal  and  patriotic  men  to  carry  us  in 
safety  through  the  storm." 

Arbitrary  arrests,  suppressions  of  treasonable  newspapers, 
etc.,  were  indirectly  defended,  the  address  speaking  of  the 
acts  of  the  national  administration  "  which  under  the  pres 
sure  of  imperative  necessity,  it  had  been  compelled  to  adopt 
for  the  successful  prosecution  of  the  war  and  the  arrest  of 
measures  in  progress  within  the  limits  of  our  own  State  to 
afford  aid  and  comfort  to  the  rebellion."  The  patriotism 
of  the  people  in  not  only  sacrificing  men  and  money  but  also 
surrendering  temporarily  their  dearly  valued  personal  rights 
such  as  freedom  of  speech  and  habeas  corpus,  was  praised. 
"  When  the  war  is  closed,  we  demand  freedom  of  speech 
and  of  the  press  in  every  State  and  in  every  section  of  the 
Union." 

As  for  slavery,  the  address  took  a  stand  fully  as  advanced 
as  that  of  the  Republican  party  at  that  time.  "  Slavery," 
it  read,  "  if  not  the  primary  cause,  was  the  pretext  and 
powerful  agent  of  the  present  rebellion."  The  endeavor  to 
reverse  the  verdict  of  the  ballot-box  so  as  to  make  the  gen 
eral  government  subservient  to  the  slaveholding  interest  had 
failed,  "  and  the  permanent  welfare  and  settled  sentiment 
of  the  country  forbid  any  attempt  to  soften  this  failure  or 
qualify  in  any  degree  its  disastrous  effects  upon  slavery 
itself."  That  institution,  the  address  declared,  had  been  shaken 
to  the  foundations  by  the  war.  Not  only  was  it  affirmed  that 
"  slavery  must  never  again  be  permitted  to  invade  free  ter- 


THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1862  199 

ritory  "  or  "  bring  new  slave  States  into  the  Union  "  and 
that  "  it  must  cease  to  exist  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  " 
but  it  was  also  declared  that  "  the  Constitution  must  here 
after  be  administered  in  the  spirit  of  Freedom  .  .  .  and  not 
for  the  perpetuation  of  slavery."  The  confiscation  act  as 
applied  to  slavery  was  approved  of,  as  was  the  President's 
message  recommending  federal  aid  to  states  adopting  an 
emancipation  policy.  That  the  Union  Democrats  acceded 
to  such  advanced  ground  is  noteworthy. 

On  the  subject  of  the  war,  the  address  opposed  any  settle 
ment  which  should  "  leave  in  doubt  the  power  of  the  Gen 
eral  Government  to  maintain  its  rightful  authority "  or 
"  leave  the  material  ability  of  this  treason  but  partially 
broken  and  subdued,"  or  which  should  "  recognize  any  di 
vision  of  the  Union,  or  any  concession  to  the  political  de 
mands  of  the  slaveholding  interests.  ..."  The  adminis 
tration  of  Lincoln  was  praised,  its  difficulties  mentioned, 
and  the  Democratic  opposition  scored  for  its  hostility. 

...  in  everything  it  [the  government]  has  hitherto  done,  and 
in  everything  it  proposes  to  do  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Union  and  the  restoration  ...  of  the  Constitution,  it  encoun 
ters  the  settled  hostility  of  men  who  claim  to  be  Democrats 
.  .  .  who  seek  ...  by  the  control  of  the  organized  machinery 
of  that  party  to  defeat  its  policy  and  destroy  its  influence. 

The  address  concluded  with  an  appeal  to  Republicans, 
Union  Democrats,  and  all  other  loyal  men  who  supported 
the  administration  and  who  assented  to  the  principles  stated 
above,  "  to  waive  all  questions  of  mere  form  and  usage  in 
political  actions"  and  to  unite  in  electing  three  delegates  from 
each  assembly  district  to  meet  in  convention  for  the  nomi 
nation  of  state  officers.  Then  followed  the  resolutions,  to 
the  same  effect  as  the  address,  but  in  addition  condemning 


200       MEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [4OO 

corruption  in  the  government,  calling  for  "  strict  economy, 
scrupulous  honesty,  and  punishment  of  dishonesty,  extrava 
gance,  and  fraud,"  and  appointing  a  Union  state  committee.1 
The  document  was,  on  the  whole,  an  able  and  patriotic 
paper.  The  action  of  the  legislative  caucus  attracted  con 
siderable  attention  outside  of  New  York.  Colonel  Forney 
wrote  to  the  Philadelphia  Press :  "  I  feel  authorized  to  state 
that  the  President  and  every  member  of  his  Cabinet  are  anx 
ious  that  the  good  example  of  New  York  shall  be  followed 
up  in  every  other  State."  Administration  newspapers 
commended  the  address  and  resolutions.3  It  does  not  seem 
an  exaggeration  to  conclude  that  the  action  of  New  York 
on  this  occasion  was  of  influence  in  the  formation  of  a 
Union  party  in  the  North  generally. 

1  The  Tribune,  April  29,  contains  the  address  and  resolutions  printed 
in  full. 

z  Extract  from  the  Philadelphia  Press  quoted  in  the  Albany  Even 
ing  Journal,  April  26. 

3  Approving  notices  from  the  Newark  Mercury,  Philadelphia  Press, 
Newark  Daily  Advertiser  (in  Albany  Evening  Journal,  May  2),  Spring 
field  Republican,  Sandusky  Register  (in  Albany  Evening  Journal,  May 
3),  Detroit  Daily  Tribune,  Boston  Journal,  Pittsburg  Gazette  (in  Al 
bany  Evening  Journal,  May  6). 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS 

FROM  the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature  to  the  end  of 
July,  1862,  might  be  called  formative  months  in  the  history 
of  the  politics  of  this  State.  We  have  seen  how  quiet  that 
field  was  from  January  to  May;  but  by  the  end  of  July, 
there  was  great  activity.  There  were  a  number  of  causes  at 
work  producing  this  change.  These  included,  of  course, 
deeply-rooted  forces,  not  the  product  of  this  particular  time, 
such  as  the  effects  of  party  affiliation  of  many  years.  War 
or  no  war,  the  offices  still  had  to  be  distributed ;  and  the  Re 
gency,  Tammany,  and  Mozart  were  alike  hungry.  But  there 
were  three  other  influences  sufficiently  traceable  and  con 
nected  more  especially  with  the  spring  and  summer  of  1862, 
which  contributed  to  renewed  partisan  intensity  in  New 
York  State.  These  factors  were  the  reentrance  of  Thurlow 
Weed  on  the  political  stage,  the  gradual  drift  of  the  Repub 
licans  toward  emancipation,  and  the  reverses  experienced 
by  the  Union  armies  during  the  summer. 

We  miss  Weed  from  the  last  days  of  1861  to  the  summer 
of  1862.  During  that  interval  he  was  in  Europe  on  a  quasi- 
diplomatic  errand.1  Perhaps,  there  was  some  connection 
between  his  change  of  occupation  and  the  serious  checks 
which,  during  the  few  years  preceding  this  trip,  had  been 
administered  to  his  long  career  as  dispenser  of  patronage 
and  controller  of  conventions.  At  any  rate,  the  Republicans 

1  For  an  account  of  this,  see  Weed's  Autobiography,  p.  634  et  seq. 
401]  201 


202       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [4O2 

went  through  the  first  part  of  1862  without  his  management 
or  direct  influence.  On  the  5th  of  June,  however,  Weed 
landed  in  New  York  City,1  ready  once  more  to  pull  the 
political  wires.  On  his  arrival,  he  was  tendered  a  public 
reception  by  the  aldermen  and  couhcilmen  of  the  metro 
polis,2  though  the  majority  of  both  boards  were  Democrats; 
but  he  declined,  and  left  for  Albany.  The  Tribune  seized 
the  opportunity  to  exhibit  the  corrupt  motives  of  the  alder 
men  and  incidentally  to  make  a  sly  dig  at  Weed.  It  said : 

We  indignantly  repel  the  suggestion  that  irony  lurks  under  the 
ostentatious  zeal  of  Messrs  Boole,  Genet  &  Co.  to  give  Mr. 
Weed  a  benefit  .  .  .  They  are  simply  intent  on  having  a  good 
time  at  the  public  cost  .  .  .  But  they  will  be  disappointed. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Weed  has  traveled  and  knows  the  ropes  .  .  .  He 
can  bear  a  crowd  when  its  focus  is  someone  else  than  himself ; 
but  he  hates  to  be  stared  at,  and  he  has  a  perfect  horror  of 
being  called  on  for  a  speech.8 

Soon  after,  Weed  held  a  private  reception  at  the  Astor 
House.  The  politicians  of  almost  every  stripe  were  pres 
ent.  The  Herald  gave  an  interesting  description  of  Weed 
as  he  then  looked.  It  said: 

[He]  has  not  to  all  appearances  benefited  much  by  his  trip 
to  Europe.  His  florid  complexion  is  replaced  by  a  grayish 
sallow  tinge,  .  .  .  His  clothes  appear  to  hang  loosely  .  .  .  , 
while  the  stoop  of  his  shoulders  is  becoming  more  apparent 
every  day.  His  eye  ...  is,  however,  still  bright  and  pene 
trating,  and  although  he  has  aged  considerably  during  the  last 
few  months,  his  energy  of  mind  and  body  is  still  unimpaired.1 

1  Herald,  June  6. 

*  Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  3. 

3  Tribune,  June  5. 

4  Herald,  June  IT. 


403]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  203 

To  the  reentrance  of  Weed  into  New  York  politics  can  be 
traced,  I  think,  the  direction  which  the  differences  in  the 
ranks  of  the  administration  supporters  in  this  State  took. 
Not  that  there  surely  would  have  been  complete  harmony 
had  Weed  remained  abroad.  Perhaps  the  personal  rival 
ries,  some  evidences  of  which  we  have  noted  in  the  Legis 
lature  of  1862,  would  have  reappeared  in  the  fall  con 
vention,  even  though  Weed  had  not  been  there.  But  no 
division  on  the  question  of  slavery  or  on  the  attitude 
toward  the  seceded  states  had  appeared  in  the  Republican 
ranks  during  that  session.  Weed,  however,  was  inclined  to 
be  a  conservative.  He  had  not  been  able  to  carry  with  him 
his  followers  of  1861 ;  but  his  presence  in  1862  served  to  di 
vide  the  Republicans  rather  sharply  on  the  question  of 
whether  the  nominee  for  governor  should  be  a  radical  or  a 
conservative. 

As  soon  as  Weed  returned,  the  New  York  Herald 
began  to  advocate  an  alliance  between  the  Weed  Re 
publicans  and  the  Democrats,  on  the  basis  of  support  of  the 
President  and  the  restoration  of  the  Union  as  it  was  and  of 
the  constitution  unchanged;  and  it  stated  that  steps  toward 
such  a  coalition  were  being  taken.  Weed's  own  words  in 
his  Albany  Evening  Journal  gave  color  to  such  rumors.  It 
seemed  as  though  a  combination  by  Weed  and  the  Regency 
against  the  radicals  was  a  possibility  when  the  Regency 
mouthpiece,  the  Albany  Argus,  came  out  with  a  hearty  ap 
proval  of  the  sentiments  of  its  former  rival,  saying: 

It  is  gratifying  to  find  an  organ  of  the  position  and  influence 
of  the  Evening  Journal  giving  utterance  to  truths  against  which 
too  many  of  his  [Weed's]  party  close  their  eyes,  and  boldly 
denouncing  that  evil  spirit  at  the  North  which  would  play  into 
the  hands  of  treason  and  shiver  the  Union  into  fragments 
rather  than  fail  in  the  design  to  abolitionize  the  country.  The 


204       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [404 

return  of  the  veteran  editor  of  the  Journal  will  be  hailed  with 
satisfaction,  if  it  is  to  establish  in  its  columns  the  consistent 
advocacy  of  such  sentiments.1 

Once  again,  the  tocsin  was  sounded  by  Greeley.  A  Tribune 
editorial  read: 

The  Albany  Evening  Journal  has  furnished  very  few  useful 
and  welcome  quotations  to  the  Pro-Slavery  organs  for  months, 
but  the  return  of  the  veteran  editor  from  Europe  has  been 
signalized  by  a  revival  of  the  characteristics  of  1860-61.  .  .  . 
If  the  Journal  will  only  keep  straight  on  in  this  path,  there  is 
no  reason  why  it  and  the  Argus  should  squabble  for  the  State 
printing  .  .  .  .  2 

Such  talk  continued  through  the  summer,  until,  when  the 
convention  met,  radicalism  and  conservatism  clashed  in  the 
contest  for  the  gubernatorial  nomination. 

We  come  now  to  the  second  influence  which  has  been 
mentioned  as  having  given  a  strong  impulse  to  the  partisan 
revival,  namely,  the  progress  of  the  Republican  party 
toward  abolition.  One  of  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the 
Democratic  State  Convention  of  September,  1861,  declared 
that  the  Democracy  would  "  regard  any  attempt  to  pervert 
this  conflict  for  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  as  fatal  lo  all 
hopes  of  the  restoration  of  the  Union;  "  and  it  was  further 
declared  that  the  Democrats  of  New  York  would  not  sup 
port  such  a  war.3  Governor  Morgan,  in  his  annual  mes 
sage  of  1862,  omitted  any  direct  reference  to  the  slavery 
question*  and  so  far  as  national  affairs  were  concerned, 

1  Argus,  June  21.  2  Tribune,  June  27. 

3  Herald,  Sept.  6,  1861. 

4  Except  a  brief  mention  of  "  the  spirit  of  nullification "  reviving 
"  under  the  form  of  slavery  agitation." 


405]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  205 

contented  himself  with  a  review  of  the  crisis  caused  by  se 
cession,  the  emergency  which  had  confronted  the  state  au 
thorities  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  and  the  manner  in 
which  the  call  had  been  met.1  This  message  deserves  to 
be  contrasted  with  that  of  Seymour  in  the  following  year. 
In  the  Legislature  of  1862,  almost  the  only  important  oppo 
sition  which  the  Democrats  showed  was  connected  with  the 
policy  of  the  national  administration  on  slavery;  though 
that  opposition  was,  as  we  have  noticed,  very  weak. 
The  Democratic  press  in  this  State  generally  disapproved 
Lincoln's  message  recommending  cooperation  with  states 
adopting  gradual  emancipation.  The  Albany  Argus  said: 
"  The  impulsiveness  and  want  of  consideration  in  the  Ex 
ecutive  gives  a  sense  of  insecurity.  .  .  .  Let  us  hope  that 
this  proposition — which  only  shows  how  far  we  are  drifting 
from  Constitutional  duty — will  share  the  fate  of  the  Presi 
dential  scheme  for  colonization,  and  be  considered  only  to 
be  dismissed."  2  The  Buffalo  Courier  said :  "  What  good 
is  to  come  of  it?  Why  introduce  a  disturbing  element  into 
national  affairs  .  .  .  ?  We  regret  that  the  President  has 
taken  time  to  say  anything  about  slavery."  Others  pro 
nounced  the  message  a  sop  to  abolition  clamor. 

New  York  was  a  center  from  which  were  radiating 
contrary  sentiments.  The  Tribune,  the  Post,  and  the 
Independent,  were  powerful  forces  in  moulding  Re 
publican  opinion  toward  emancipation.  On  March  6th, 
an  anti-slavery  mass  meeting  was  held  in  New  York 
City.  Among  the  vice-presidents  and  secretaries  were 
George  Bancroft,  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng,  Professor  Francis  Lieber, 
David  Dudley  Field,  William  Cullen  Bryant,  President 

1  Lincoln  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  357-411. 
*  Quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Mar.  12.  3  Ibid. 


206       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [4O6 

Charles  King  of  Columbia  College,  and  Charles  A.  Dana, 
The  principal  speech  was  made  by  Carl  Schurz.1  A  few 
months  later,  an  Emancipation  League  was  organized  in 
New  York  City.  The  Herald  reported  that  arrangements 
were  being  made  to  spread  the  League's  work  throughout 
the  North.2  William  Cullen  Bryant  became  president  of 
the  organization.8 

At  the  same  time,  anti-abolition  sentiment  was  becoming 
active.  The  Argus,  roused  by  General  Hunter's  order,4 
raged  at  the  dangers  which  threatened  the  country  from 
revolutionists.6  In  June,  some  twenty-five  men  met  at  the 
Everett  House  in  New  York  City,  in  response  to  an  invita 
tion  signed  by  William  C.  Prime  of  the  Journal  of  Com 
merce,  James  Brooks  of  the  Express,  Benjamin  Ray,  chair 
man  of  the  Mozart  Hall  General  Committee,  and  Elijah  F. 
Purdy,  chairman  of  the  Tammany  Hall  General  Committee. 
The  object  was  to  consult  on  the  sinking  of  past  differences 
so  as  to  unite  against  the  radicals.  Among  those  present, 
besides  Prime,  Brooks,  and  Ray,  were  the  following  promi 
nent  New  York  politicians:  Augustus  Schell,  Fernando 
Wood,  Gideon  J.  Tucker,  F.  A.  Tallmadge,  and  John  A. 
Green.  A  permanent  organization  was  formed.  Those 
present  were  reported  as  favoring  sustaining  the  President 
in  support  of  the  war  but  opposing  abolition.6  This  meet 
ing  took  place  six  days  before  the  caucus  of  conservative 
members  of  Congress,  held  in  Washington  and  presided 
over  by  Crittenden. 

1  Tribune,  Mar.  7. 

2  Herald,  June  7. 

8  Herald,  June  22. 

4  For  Hunter's  order,  see  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  iv,  p.  65. 

6  Argus,  May  21. 

6  Herald,  June  22. 


407]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  207 

The  next  step  of  the  New  York  City  conservatives  was  a 
resort  to  the  tactics  used  previous  to  the  opening  of  the  war 
— a  Union  mass  meeting ;  Union  in  the  sense  of  the  demon 
strations  of  1859-60,  not  those  of  1861.  This  occurred  on 
July  ist,  at  the  Academy  of  Music,  and  was  under  the  aus 
pices  of  the  Young  Men's  Democratic  Association.1  The 
Leader,  the  organ  of  Tammany,  announced  the  affair  as 
"  a  grand  gathering  of  the  National  men  of  the  Empire 
City ;  "  it  said  that  the  call  was  signed  by  Democrats,  Old 
Line  Whigs,  and  converted  Republicans,  and  invited  all  op 
posed  to  further  agitation  of  the  negro  question  and  in  favor 
of  the  constitution  as  it  was,  to  attend.2  The  meeting  was  a 
large  one.  Letters  were  read  from  Crittenden,  John  S.  Carlile, 
and  Reverdy  Johnson ;  and  speeches  were  made  by  Charles 
A.  Wyckliffe  of  Kentucky,  William  Duer  of  Oswego,  who 
had  long  been  a  leading  New  York  Whig,  James  Brooks, 
and  Fernando  Wood.  The  last  mentioned  denounced  Con 
gress  as  an  abolition  concern  that  must  be  gotten  rid  of.  He 
said: 

It  is  to  be  done  as  Oliver  Cromwell  sent  home  the  Rump  Par 
liament,  by  walking  into  Parliament  and  scattering  it  to  the 
winds.  Let  your  voice  be  heard  in  the  capital  of  the  country, 
and  if  your  armies  are  not  successful  at  once,  I  for  one  raise 
the  standard, — a  change  of  measures  or  a  change  of  men.3 

The  resolutions  adopted,  after  declaring  that  it  was  the  duty 
of  all  citizens  to  devote  everything,  if  necessary,  to  the  pre 
servation  of  the  Union,  denounced  secession  and  abolition, 
reaffirmed  the  Crittenden  resolution  of  1861  as  to  the  pur- 

1  Herald,  July  2. 

2  Quoted  in  the  Tribune,  June  30. 
*  Tribune,  July  7. 


208       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [408 

poses  of  the  war,  denounced  the  plans  of  the  New  York 
Emancipation  League  as  an  attack  upon  the  American 
Union,  expressed  approval  of  the  President's  action  in  re 
voking  the  proclamations  of  abolition  generals,  thanked 
McClellan  and  Halleck,  condemned  governmental  extrava 
gance  and  plundering  by  contractors,  and  asserted  that  "this 
is  a  government  of  white  men  .  .  .  [that  it]  was  estab 
lished  exclusively  for  the  white  race ;  that  the  negro  race  are 
not  entitled  and  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  political  or 
social  equality."  x  The  annual  Fourth  of  July  celebration 
of  Tammany  was  a  similar  demonstration.2 

Taking  up  now  the  influence  of  the  Union  reverses  in  the 
summer  of  1862,  it  should  first  be  noted  that  the  armies  of 
the  North  were  quite  successful  during  the  first  part  of  the 
year.  One  Union  victory — large  or  small — followed  an 
other  in  rapid  succession.  No  doubt,  this  in  part  accounts 
for  the  calm  in  the  New  York  political  situation  during  that 
time.  The  retreat  from  the  Peninsula  came  as  a  tremendous 
disappointment.  There  is  nothing  like  unsuccessful  war 
to  stir  up  opposition  to  an  administration.  So  it  was  in 
New  York.  At  the  same  time,  however,  there  immediately 
followed  a  series  of  Union  war  meetings  throughout  the 
State,  in  favor  of  sustaining  the  government,  raising  boun 
ties,  and  encouraging  enlistments.  These  assemblages  were 
addressed  by  men  of  all  parties.  The  natural  effect  of  such 
enthusiasm  was  to  weaken  the  opposition  to  the  adminis 
tration,  and  in  a  way  to  offset  the  influence  of  the  reverses. 
Some  of  these  war  meetings  steered  clear  of  the  slavery 
question,  while  others  did  not.  A  Queens  County  demon 
stration  favored  the  adoption  of  every  means  known  to 

1  Herald,  July  2. 
*  Herald,  July  6. 


409]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  209 

civilized  warfare  to  subdue  the  rebellion.1  A  Brooklyn  war 
meeting  adopted  a  similar  resolution.2  At  another  Union 
meeting  in  Queens  County,  a  prominent  speaker  said :  "  We 
meet  to  declare  that  political  ambition  and  corruption,  trea 
son,  slavery,  abolitionism,  or  any  wild  fanaticism,  shall 
never  separate  or  divide  our  country."  8  The  New  York 
City  war  meeting  in  Union  Square  on  July  I5th  was  of  a 
mixed  character.  At  stand  number  five,  the  abolitionists 
were  in  force  and  listened  to  their  favorite,  General  Fre 
mont  ;  while  at  stand  number  four,  the  crowd  sang,  "  We'll 
hang  Horace  Greeley  on  a  sour  apple  tree."  4 

However  much  public  opinion  was  rallied  to  the  support 
of  the  government  by  such  meetings,  the  excitement  over  the 
proposed  state  draft  must  have  been  a  counterbalancing  in 
fluence.  Despite  the  war  meetings,  despite  liberal  bounties, 
despite  the  enthusiasm  aroused  by  the  visits  of  Generals 
Sickles  and  Meagher  and  other  officers  from  the  front,  re 
cruiting  in  New  York  was  rather  slow  during  July  and 
August,  1862.  Again  and  again,  it  was  said  that  a  draft  was 
contemplated  or  it  was  actually  announced  for  such  and  such 
a  day.  The  draft  was  not  held  in  New  York  in  1862,  but 
all  preparations  for  it  were  made.5  Accounts  of  these  ar 
rangements,  appointments  of  enrolling  officers,  details  as  to 
who  were  and  who  were  not  exempt,  notices  of  the  flight 
of  those  seeking  to  escape  the  service,  etc.,  appeared  almost 
daily  in  the  newspapers.  Though  this  draft  was  not  pub 
licly  attacked  by  the  Democrats,  the  prolonged  agitation 

1  Herald,  July  27. 
z  Herald,  Aug.  20. 

3  Thomas  Addis  Emmet  at  Newtown,  Herald,  Aug.  n. 

4  Herald,  July  16. 

5  This  was  a  state  draft— not  a  national  draft  like  those  of  the  fol 
lowing  years.     See  Annual  Cyclopedia  for  1862,  p.  659. 


2io       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [4IO 

over  it  doubtless  had  a  great  effect  in  arousing  dissatisfac 
tion  with  the  ruling  party.1 

By  midsummer,  then,  there  had  been  dissipated  any  pros 
pect  of  averting  a  spirited  political  battle  in  this  State.  In 
the  election  of  1861,  the  New  York  Democrats  had  suffered 
under  the  imputation  of  being  opposed  to  the  government 
at  Washington.  Acordingly,  we  find  that  each  party  in 
1862  tried  to  make  the  other  appear  as  the  one  in  factious 
opposition  to  the  national  administration.  The  Union  State 
Committee  not  only  acted  with  the  Republican  State  Com 
mittee  in  preparing  for  the  fall  campaign,  but  also  invited 
the  Democratic  and  Constitutional  Union  State  Committees 
to  join  in  calling  a  convention  for  the  nomination  of  state 
officers,  on  the  basis  of  approval  of  the  legislative  caucus 
address  and  resolutions  of  April.  The  Constitutional  Union 
Committee,  while  asserting  that  "  it  was  the  highest  duty 
of  all  citizens,  at  the  present  time,  to  lay  aside  partisan 
controversy,"  declined  the.  invitation,  declaring  that  the 
address  embodied  sentiments  tending  to  continue  such 
discussion,  and  did  not  discriminate  "  against  that 
numerous  class  in  their  [the  Republicans']  ranks  who 
seek  to  override  the  constitution."  The  Democratic  State 
Committee  took  a  similar  position.  It  asserted  that  the 
legislative  address  signally  misrepresented  the  acts  and 
motives  of  the  Democratic  party,  that  the  latter's  patriotism 
and  loyalty  to  the  constitution  needed  no  defence,  that  the 
war  had  shown  the  devotion  of  Democrats  to  the  country 
rising  above  all  considerations  of  partisan  prejudice  or  in- 

1  This  general  impression  from  the  newspapers  is  confirmed  by  the 
remark  by  state  Senator  Truman  at  a  Republican  caucus  in  February 
1863,  wherein  he  assailed  Governor  Morgan  as  having  "been  the  prin 
cipal  means  of  defeating  the  Union  party  last  fall  by  holding  back 
the  draft  and  carrying  it  into  the  election"  (Argus,  Feb.  4,  1863). 

2  Herald,  July  i. 


4II]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  211 

terest,  that  "  the  Democracy  of  New  York  stand  ready  to 
unite  with  all  patriotic  citizens,  without  reference  to  former 
party  combinations,  who  agree  in  sustaining  the  govern 
ment  in  the  prosecution  of  the  ...  war  ...  for  the  pur 
pose  of  restoring  the  Union  as  it  was  and  maintaining  the 
Constitution  as  it  is;"  but  that  they  "repel  all  idea  of  politi 
cal  association  with  that  class  of  fanatics  who  are  raising 
unnecessary  and  factious  issues."  ^ 

Thereupon,  the  Republican  and  Union  State  Committees 
issued  a  call  for  a  Union  State  Convention,  and  invited  all 
Republicans,  all  Democrats,  and  all  loyal  citizens,  sup 
porters  of  the  administration  and  sympathizers  with  the 
principles  of  the  legislative  address,  to  unite  in  choosing 
delegates.2  At  the  same  time,  the  Democratic  press  insisted 
that  it  was  the  Democrats  who  had  laid  aside  party  while 
the  Republicans  divided  the  North  by  zeal  for  abolition.3 
"  The  platform  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee,"  said 
the  Buffalo  Courier, 

is  simple  and  comprehensive,  so  terse  that  it  requires  no  ex 
planation,  so  broad  that  every  Union-loving  man  can  stand 
upon  it.  ...  Under  this  call  no  man  is  required  to  endorse  the 
action  of  any  previous  caucus  or  convention;  he  is  not  asked 
to  adopt  any  theory  in  regard  to  the  war;  .  .  .  every  man 
that  loves  this  .  .  .  government,  .  .  .  and  who  wishes  to  pre 
serve  its  integrity,  is  cordially  invited  to  unite  with  the  only 
national  political  organization  now  existing; 

and  these  assertions  were  concluded  with  a  warm  demand 

1  Answer  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee  printed  in  the  Herald, 
July  10. 

2  Herald,  July  24. 

8  E.  g.  Argus,  Aug.  13,  23;  Buffalo  Courier,  quoted  by  the  Argus, 
Aug.  20;  Kingston  Argus,  quoted  in  the  Albany  Argus,  Aug.  21. 
The  same  sentiment  was  contained  in  the  addresses  of  the  temporary 
chairman  (Hon.  Alonzo  C.  Paige)  and  the  president  (Wm.  C 
Murphy)  of  the  Democratic  State  Convention  in  September. 


212        NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [4I2 

for  the  instant  reinforcement  of  the  army.1  Thus,  each 
party  made  a  bid  for  the  "  war  vote." 

The  Constitutional  Union  convention  assembled  at  Troy 
on  the  9th  of  September,  and  the  Democratic  convention  a 
day  later  at  the  neighboring  city  of  Albany.  This  prox 
imity  of  time  and  place  was  not  without  a  purpose.  The 
idea  was  to  gain  for  the  Democratic  ticket  the  support  of 
the  old  gentlemen  who  had  once  been  Silver  Gray  Whigs.2 
Then  too,  it  permitted  the  claim  to  be  made  that  the  Demo 
crats  had  risen  above  party  in  accepting  as  their  principal 
candidate  the  nominee  of  another  convention.  The  Tribune 
in  an  editorial  characterized  this  ally  of  the  Democrats  thus : 

The  "Constitutional  Union  Convention,"  which  met  .  .  .  last 
Tuesday,  to  secure  good  places  on  the  fusion  ticket  for  certain 
aspirants  of  its  own  faith,  was  a  body  respectable  in  the  past 
positions  of  its  leading  members.  Messrs.  F.  A.  Tallmadge, 
James  Brooks,  and  George  Briggs  have  been  in  Congress ;  Mr. 
B.  Davis  Noxon  has  tried  to  be;  and  these  men  present  or 
those  represented  might  officer  a  quite  respectable  party.  But 
when  you  look  for  the  rank  and  file  of  this  seedy  organiza 
tion,  your  eye  discerns  but  an  aching  void.  Briefly,  it  has  no 
rank  and  file — not  ten  thousand  in  our  whole  State — and  the 
whole  concern  is  liable  to  an  indictment  as  a  device  for  ob 
taining  votes  under  false  pretences.  .  .  .  The  "  Constitutional 
Union  Party  "  is  an  unmitigated  humbug — .  .  .  .3 

There  were  not  a  hundred  present  at  the  convention.  The 
temporary  chairman,  B.  Davis  Noxon,  made  a  remarkable 

1  Buffalo  Courier,  quoted  by  the  Argus,  Aug.  20. 

2  James    Brooks    and    ex-Governor    Hunt,    both    prominent    former 
Whigs,  received  congressional  nominations  from  the  Democrats. 

8  Tribune,  Sept.  13. 


4!3]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  213 

speech,  in  which,  while  uttering  no  word  of  condemnation 
for  the  states  which  had  seceded,  he  said : 

We  have  had  enough  of  this  war;  blood  enough  has  been  spilt; 
the  country  has  suffered  enough,  and  we  have  an  abundance  of 
expenses.  Let  us  stop  this  war  without  any  further  expenses 
than  are  absolutely  necessary.  .  .  .  The  crisis  of  this  hour  is 
appalling.  It  is  not  alone  that  our  armies  are  defeated.  The 
painful  truth  is  manifest  that  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  our  generals  in  the  field  are  embarrassed  and  threat 
ened  by  the  leaders  of  a  party  whose  object  is  not  the  restora 
tion  of  this  Union,  but  the  abolition  of  slavery.1 

James  Brooks,  a  former  Whig  who  had,  as  we  have  seen, 
recently  acted  with  sundry  Democratic  politicians,  moved 
that  a  committee  of  conference  be  appointed  to  consult  with 
a  similar  committee  of  the  Democratic  convention.  The 
motion  was  withdrawn  to  allow  an  informal  ballot  for  gov 
ernor  and  lieutenant-governor  to  be  taken.  For  the  former 
office,  Horatio  Seymour  received  32  votes,  John  A.  Dix 
20,  Millard  Fillmore  6,  and  scattering  3.  For  the  lieuten 
ant-governorship,  W.  C.  Hasbrouck  received  29  votes, 
while  four  distinguished  representatives  of  dough-faced 
Whiggism — ex-Governor  Washington  Hunt,  William  Duer, 
Lorenzo  Burrows,  and  James  Brooks — divided  the  rest. 
The  motion  to  appoint  a  conference  committee  was  then 
adopted,  and  the  committee,  with  James  Brooks  at  its  head, 
was  duly  named.2 

When  the  Democratic  convention  met,  the  nomination 
of  Horatio  Seymour  was  almost  a  foregone  conclusion. 
The  newspaper  correspondents,  the  day  previous  to  the  open 
ing  of  the  convention,  reported  the  unanimity  of  feeling 

1  Tribune,  Sept.  10;  Herald,  Sept.  10. 
*  Herald,  Sept.  10. 


2i4       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

for  Seymour.1  The  latter  was  present  as  a  delegate  from 
Oneida  County.  Other  prominent  men  in  attendance  were 
August  Belmont,  William  Kelly,  Dean  Richmond,  Peter 
Cagger,  Sanford  E.  Church,  Elijah  F.  Purdy,  Benjamin 
Wood,  and  Fernando  Wood.  The  remarkable  feature  about 
this  convention  was  its  harmony.  New  York  County  did 
not  present  the  rival  delegations  from  Tammany  and  Mo 
zart,  which  had  distracted  Democratic  convention  after  con 
vention.  Fernando  Wood  and  Elijah  F.  Purdy  had  laid 
aside  differences.  Their  followers  had  begun  to  feel  the 
fact  that  most  of  the  federal,  state  and  municipal  patronage 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Republicans.  So  we  find  Purdy  and 
Wood  joining  in  calling  the  conservative  meeting  in  June, 
referred  to  above.  In  July  Purdy,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Tam 
many  Hall  General  Committee,  introduced  a  resolution  fav 
oring  cooperation  with  other  Democratic  organizations  so 
as  to  avoid  division  at  the  fall  election.2  Mozart  like 
wise  resolved  to  have  no  contest  at  the  coming  state  con 
vention  "  in  view  of  the  exigencies  of  the  country  "  and  the 
necessity  of  the  Democracy  of  New  York  City  being  thor 
oughly  united  "  to  secure  a  return  of  democratic  supremacy 
in  the  administration  of  the  State  government."  3  Accord 
ingly,  Tammany  and  Mozart  made  a  deal  by  which  the 
former  had  the  delegates  from  four  districts  and  the  latter 
those  from  the  remaining  three  districts.4  On  the  floor  of 

1  Tribune,  Sept.   10,   containing  both   Associated   Press  and   Tribune 
special  despatches. 

2  Tribune,  July  n. 

8  Advertisement  of  Mozart  Hall,  Herald,  Sept.  5. 

*  Advertisements  of  the  Tammany  and  Mozart  Hall  General  Com 
mittees,  giving  the  facts  of  the  conference  and  the  terms  of  the  fusion, 
Herald,  Oct.  11;  Tribune,  Sept.  6.  In  the  charter  election  in  the  fol 
lowing  December,  Tammany  and  Mozart  united  on  a  municipal  ticket 
(Herald,  Nov.  21). 


4!5]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  215 

tihe  convention,  Purdy  and  Wood  walked  arm  in  arm  and 
sat  together.  When  the  roll  was  called,  Purdy  arose,  and 
expressing  his  gratification  that  New  York  City  presented 
a  united  front  for  the  first  time  in  many  years,  moved  that 
the  names  of  the  delegation  headed  by  the  Honorable  Fer 
nando  Wood  be  called  with  those  of  the  Tammany  delega 
tion — a  proposal  greeted  with  cheers  *  and  accepted. 

A  letter  from  the  committee  on  conference  of  the  Con 
stitutional  Union  convention  suggesting  that  the  Democrats 
appoint  a  similar  committee  was  laid  before  the  convention, 
and  the  proposal  was  acceded  to.2  Later,  after  the  perma 
nent  organization  had  been  effected,  the  Constitutional 
Union  committee  were  invited  to  take  seats  in  the  conven 
tion,  which  they  did  amid  great  applause.  But  this  enthu 
siasm  was  nothing  compared  to  what  followed  when  Elijah 
F.  Purdy  moved  that  Horatio  Seymour  be  unanimously 
nominated  for  governor  by  acclamation.  The  delegates 
rose  to  their  feet,  and  cheer  after  cheer  rent  the  hall.  The 
motion  was  carried  amid  thunderous  applause. 

Deafening  calls  for  Seymour  ensued.  The  candidate  soon 
appeared,  and  when  the  delegates  had  quieted  down  pro 
ceeded  to  address  them,  interrupted  from  time  to  time  by 
enthusiastic  approval.  He  spoke  of  the  efforts  of  the  Dem 
ocracy  of  New  York  to  avert  the  war,  criticised  Congress 
for  its  violation  of  the  Crittenden  resolution,  showed  how 
the  course  of  Congress  tended  to  unite  the  South  and  divide 
the  North,  and  held  up  the  Republican  press  as  attacking 
a  Republican  administration.  Then,  he  asserted  that  the 
Republicans  were  not  fitted  to  carry  on  the  government. 
Though  not  intentionally  dishonest  and  though  the  party 

1  Herald,  Sept.  11;  Argus,  Sept.  n. 

2  The  letter  is  printed  in  the  Tribune,  Sept.  11. 


216       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

contained  loyal  men,  its  leaders  were  dangerous  and  unwise. 
The  men  in  power  could  not  save  the  country.  The  Demo 
cratic  party  would  continue  loyally  to  support  the  President 
and  give  him  all  the  men  he  called  for  to  uphold  the  gov 
ernment,  execute  the  laws,  put  down  the  rebellion,  and  gain 
an  honorable  and  lasting  peace.  But  that  party  would  not 
submit  to  terrorism.  The  President  had  been  less  em 
barrassed  by  Democrats  than  by  Republicans.1  When  Sey 
mour  had  finished,  there  was  another  scene  of  tremendous 
enthusiasm.  Within  the  narrow  partisan  position  which 
the  New  York  Democrats  had  taken,  the  speech  evinced 
good  political  leadership,  since  its  criticism  of  the  administra 
tion  was  not  tainted  by  Copperheadism.  The  Tribune  owned 
that  the  utterance  was  guarded  and  cautious,  and  could  only 
say  that  Seymour  "  had  done  his  best  to  shoot  so  as  to  hit  it 
if  it  is  a  deer  and  miss  it  if  it  is  a  calf."  2 

When  the  applause  following  Seymour's  speech  had  died 
down,  there  were  loud  cries  for  Fernando  Wood.  The 
latter  briefly  endorsed  Seymour's  sentiments,  and  pledged 
that  New  York  City  would  give  the  candidate  30,000  ma 
jority — a  promise  subsequently  made  good.  A  motion  to 
print  200,000  copies  of  Seymour's  address  was  then  adopted. 
Meanwhile,  the  two  conference  committees  had  labored  in 
vain  to  reach  an  agreement.  The  chairman  of  the  Demo 
cratic  conference  committee  so  reported  to  the  convention, 
and  also  that  the  Constitutional  Unionists  wanted  the  nomi 
nations  for  lieutenant-governor  and  clerk  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals,  and  that  they  offered  for  the  former  office  the 
names  of  T.  B.  St.  John,  ex-Governor  Hunt,  and  William 
C.  Hasbrouck.  After  debate,  the  convention  took  a  vote 

1  Argus,  Sept.  n;  Herald,  Sept.  u. 
J Tribune,  Sept.  11. 


417]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  217 

resulting  in  David  R.  Floyd  Jones  receiving  72  votes  to  47 
for  T.  B.  St.  John.  The  ticket  was  soon  completed  without 
trouble.  A  bone  was  thrown  to  the  Constitutional  Unionists 
in  the  nomination  of  F.  A.  Tallmadge  for  clerk  of  the  Court 
of  Appeals,  which  concession,  though  not  satisfactory  to 
the  rump  of  the  Bell-Everettites,  resulted  in  their  endorse 
ment  of  the  entire  ticket.1 

The  resolutions  adopted  dealt  only  with  questions  arising 
out  of  the  war.  The  restoration  of  the  Union  as  it  had 
been  and  the  maintenance  of  the  constitution  as  it  was  were 
coupled  with  the  use  of  legitimate  means  for  the  suppression 
of  the  rebellion,  as  conditions  upon  which  the  Democrats  of 
New  York  would  support  the  government;  the  Crittenden 
resolution  was  reaffirmed  and  its  violation  was  declared  to 
be  a  breach  of  public  faith ;  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press 
was  demanded;  and  illegal  and  unconstitutional  arrests  and 
imprisonments  of  citizens  of  the  State  of  New  York  were 
denounced.2 

From  the  mere  party  point  of  view,  Seymour's  nomina 
tion  was,  perhaps,  the  strongest  that  could  have  been  made 
then.  His  character,  bearing,  and  antecedents  were  well 
suited  to  harmonize  the  various  elements  of  the  party,  his 
veto  of  the  Maine  liquor  bill  during  his  previous  term  as 
governor  brought  to  him  the  support  of  a  most  powerful 
interest,  he  was  one  of  the  most  effective  Democratic  orators 
in  the  State,  and  he  had  the  strength  which  naturally  comes 
to  a  strict  partisan  with  some  political  accomplishments. 
The  Albany  Evening  Journal  acknowledged  that  Seymour's 
personal  character  was  untarnished,  and  that  the  other 

1  Resolutions    of    the    Constitutional    Union    conference    committee, 
Argus,  Sept.  29. 

2  All  the  above  details  of  the  convention  are  based  upon  the  Herald, 
Sept.  12,  and  the  Argus,  Sept.  12. 


2i8       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [4Ig 

Democratic  candidates  were  personally  unexceptional,  hav 
ing  been  hitherto  in  the  public  service  without  any  serious 
fault  being  found  with  them.1  Thus,  the  Democrats  en 
tered  upon  the  campaign  with  good  prospects  of  success. 

The  Republican-Union  convention  assembled  at  Syracuse 
on  September  24th.  It  was  a  large  body,  having  between 
350  and  400  members.2  In  the  previous  year,  the  movement 
in  favor  of  a  single  party  to  support  the  war  and  the  admin 
istration  carrying  it  on,  had  taken  the  form  of  two  assem 
blages,  forming  a  People's  convention  and  a  Republican 
convention,  meeting  simultaneously  and  adopting  practi 
cally  the  same  ticket.  In  1862,  there  was  but  one  conven 
tion,  and  the  membership  included  both  Republicans  and 
Union  or  War  Democrats.3  Thus,  by  1862,  there  was  a 
more  complete  fusion  of  the  two  elements  into  one  Union 
party. 

Two  days  before  the  opening  session,  Horace  Greeley 
arrived  at  the  scene  of  action,  to  work  for  the  nomination  of 
General  Wadsworth  and  the  adoption  of  an  emancipation 
platform.4  James  S.  Wadsworth  was  a  gentleman  highly 
respected  for  his  ability,  philanthropy,  independence,  and 
public  spirit.  He  was  very  wealthy,  having  inherited  from 
his  father  a  large  estate  in  the  Genesee  River  valley.  He 
had  been  educated  at  Harvard  and  Yale,  and  had  studied 
law  at  Albany  and  in  Daniel  Webster's  office,  though  he  did 
not  practice.  In  the  days  of  Martin  Van  Buren,  Wads- 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  n. 

2  "A  large  proportion  [of  the  members]  had  always  been  Democrats 
till  the  bombardment  of  Fort  Sumter."— Tribune,  Sept.  26.     "  On  the 
front  seats  appeared  many  new  faces  to  a  republican  convention. "- 
Herald,  Sept.  25. 

3  Tribune,    Sept.   22.     "  One  of   the   strongest   in    numbers  .  .  .  ever 
convened  in  the  State."— Herald,  Sept.  24. 

4  Herald,  Sept.  24. 


4!9]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  219 

worth  had  zealously  supported  free  soil.  He  had  voted  in 
the  Democratic  State  Convention  of  1847  f°r  tne  resolution 
against  the  extension  of  slavery,  and  had  acted  from  1847 
to  1856  with  the  wing  of  his  party  which  upheld  that  prin 
ciple.  In  1856  he  presided  at  a  convention  of  Free-soil 
Democrats  which  ratified  the  nominations  of  Fremont  and 
Dayton,  and  thus  passed  over  to  the  Republican  party. 
Wadsworth  had  never  as  yet  run  for  any  office,  though  he 
had  been  prominently  mentioned  for  the  United  States  sen- 
atorship  in  1857  *  and  had  been  urged  to  allow  the  presen 
tation  of  his  name  for  the  gubernatorial  nomination  in 
i86o.2  In  1 86 1,  he  was  chosen  by  the  Legislature  a  dele 
gate  to  the  Peace  Conference.  When  communications  with 
the  Capital  were  cut  off  in  April  of  that  year,  Wadsworth 
freighted  a  vessel  at  his  own  expense  and  accompanied  it 
to  Annapolis.3  Upon  the  outbreak  of  hostilities,  he  en 
tered  the  volunteer  army,  and  was  made  aid  to  McDowell, 
participating  in  the  battle  of  Bull  Run.  Then  he  had  been 
appointed  a  brigadier-general,  and  during  the  winter  of 
1861-62  had  advocated  an  advance  of  the  Union  forces, 
condemning  McClellan  for  his  inactivity.  In  April,  1862, 
Wadsworth  was  made  military  governor  of  the  city  of 
Washington,  in  which  capacity  he  earned  by  his  attitude 
toward  the  recovery  of  runaway  slaves  encomiums  from  the 
Tribune  and  expressions  of  disgust  from  the  Herald.  Thus, 
the  radicals  in  the  Republican  ranks  early  turned  to  Wads- 
worth  as  suitable  for  the  head  of  the  ticket.4  Just  at  this 

1  Weed,  Autobiography,  pp.  472-3. 

2  Tribune,  Sept.  26. 

3  Albany  Evening  Journal,  May  9,  1864. 

4  The  above  particulars,   except  where  otherwise  noted,   are  drawn 
from  the  Annual  Cyclopedia  for  1864,  810-11,  and  from  the  speech  of 


220        N£W  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [42O 

time,  there  came  opportunely  for  Greeley  and  his  followers' 
Lincoln's  preliminary  emancipation  proclamation.  They 
accordingly  claimed  that  Wadsworth's  nomination  and  a 
resolution  in  favor  of  emancipation  were  necessary  to  evince 
support  of  the  President  by  the  party.1 

On  the  other  hand,  Weed  advocated  the  nomination  of 
General  Dix  and  favored  a  less  radical  platform.2  John  A. 
Dix  was  a  Democrat  who  already  had  had  a  most  dis 
tinguished  political  career  in  both  the  state  and  the  na 
tional  governments.  He  had  been  an  officer  in  the  War  of 
1812,  remaining  in  the  army  until  1826.  He  then  studied 
law,  entered  politics,  and  became  one  of  the  Albany  Re 
gency  in  its  best  days  when  it  included  Silas  Wright  and 
Martin  Van  Buren.  In  1833,  Dix  became  secretary  of 
state  of  New  York,  and  in  1845,  United  States  senator.  In 
1859,  he  was  made  postmaster  of  New  York  City  to 
restore  order  after  the  defalcation  of  Isaac  V.  Fowler.  Ap 
pointed  secretary  of  the  treasury  in  the  last  days  of 
Buchanan's  administration,  Dix  by  his  patriotic  conduct  of 
that  office  had  gained  enduring  fame.  At  the  beginning 
of  hostilities,  he  was  commissioned  a  major-general  of  vol 
unteers,  and  was  in  command  of  Fortress  Monroe  when  the 
New  York  Republican-Union  convention  of  1862  assembled. 
Dix  was  one  of  the  best  examples  of  a  War  Democrat. 

David  Dudley  Field  in  the  convention  of  1862  (Tribune,  Oct.  3). 
Later  Wadsworth  fought  gallantly  at  Fredericksburg,  Chancellors- 
ville,  and  Gettysburg;  was  advanced  to  the  command  of  a  division  in 
1864;  died  in  May  of  that  year  from  a  wound  received  in  the  battle 
of  the  Wilderness. 

1  Herald,  Sept.  24.  "  The  President's  Proclamation  of  Emancipation 
comes  just  in  time  to  receive  this  enthusiastic  recognition  and  sanc 
tion  " — Tribune,  Sept.  25. 

3  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  25. 


421  ]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  22I 

Governor  Morgan  was  mentioned  for  a  second  renomina- 
tion.  He  had  been  an  able,  honest,  and  patriotic  official; 
and  his  untiring  labors  in  raising  and  equipping  troops  as 
suredly  entitled  him  to  such  a  reward.  It  was  questioned 
at  the  time  whether  the  Governor  would  consent  to  run 
again.  This  abnegation  on  his  part  was,  perhaps,  the 
recognition  of  a  necessity.  It  was  later  said  that  Weed 
would  have  been  glad  to  have  had  Morgan  renominated  but 
that  the  opposition  to  the  Governor  had  grown  so  during  the 
summer,  that  when  the  convention  assembled  it  was  found 
that  he  could  get  but  one-third  of  the  votes.1  If  such  oppo 
sition  existed,  it  was  perhaps  due  to  Morgan's  conservative 
views,  which  had  recently  been  manifested  in  his  refusal  to 
participate  in  the  Altoona  Conference.2  Another  man  fre 
quently  spoken  of  for  the  nomination  was  Reuben  E.  Fen- 
ton,  then  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  Chautauqua  dis 
trict  since  1857.  His  friends  hoped  that  he  would  be  the 
"  dark  horse  "  receiving  the  prize,  as  Ira  Harris  had  been 
in  the  Evarts-Greeley  contest  of  the  previous  year.3  Finally, 
there  was  some  talk  of  heading  the  ticket  with  James  M. 
Cook,  formerly  banking  superintendent  and  state  senator. 

At  the  opening  of  the  convention,  almost  the  first  oc 
currence  was  an  outbreak  of  the  rivalry  which  had  char 
acterized  the  session  of  the  Legislature  of  1862.  This  time 
there  was  a  spicy  discussion  between  Thomas  G.  Alvord  and 
Henry  J.  Raymond  as  to  the  method  to  be  followed  in  choos 
ing  the  committees,  in  which  contest  Raymond's  motion 

1  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  424. 

2  The   Albany   Argus   declared   that   the   refusal    of    Morgan   to  be 
present  at  Altoona  was  "made  the  subject  of  barroom  attacks  upon 
him  at  Syracuse" — Argus,  Oct.  6.    For  the  Altoona  Conference,   see 
Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln,  vi,  pp.  164-166. 

3  Dispatch  of  Horace  Greeley  to  the  Tribune,  Sept.  23. 


222        N£^  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [422 

prevailed.1  A  long,  able  and  patriotic  speech  by  Lyman 
Tremain  filled  the  afternoon  session.  He  first  spoke  of  the 
history  and  justification  of  the  Union  party  movement  in 
this  State,  and  of  its  broad  basis,  including  men  of  all 
past  affiliations  who  sank  previous  differences  for  the  one 
object  of  supporting  the  President  in  carrying  on  the  war. 
There  was  the  same  necessity  for  a  Union  movement  this 
year  as  the  last.  The  recent  Democratic  convention  was 
strongly  and  intensely  partisan.  It  was  necessary  to  post 
pone  every  collateral  question  intended  to  divert  attention 
from  the  great  duty  of  prosecuting  the  war.  "  The  highest 
dictates  of  patriotism,"  said  Tremain, 

the  true  interests  of  the  nation,  and  the  .  .  .  success  of  ... 
the  Government  would  be  promoted  ...  if  the  people  of  this 
great  State  could  all  cooperate  in  their  political  action,  and 
present  an  undivided  front  upon  the  single  platform  of  a 
vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  .  .  .  the  moral  effect  of  such 
a  sublime  spectacle,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  could  scarcely 
be  estimated. 

Then  Tremain  went  on  to  review  Seymour's  attack  upon 
the  policy  of  abandoning  party  organizations  during  the 
war.  Tremain  declared  rightly  that  the  effect  of  Seymour's 
speech  could  hardly  fail  to  be  mischievous  at  that  time. 
"  Partisan  discussions,"  he  said, 

beget  crimination  and  recrimination.  They  lead  to  bitter  de 
nunciations  of  those  in  power  by  speakers  and  presses.  They 
tend  to  divert  attention  from  the  all-absorbing  issue  of  the 
war.  Jefferson  Davis  rejoices  to  see  the  formation  of  these 
parties.  He  has  been  deluded  with  the  hope  of  dividing  the 
people  of  the  North.  .  .  .  The  supposed  benefits  of  party  or- 

1  Herald,  Sept.  25. 


423]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  223 

ganizations,  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Seymour,  have  little  force  in  a 
crisis  like  the  present.  .  .  .  The  wolf  howling  at  our  doors  is 
the  Rebellion. 

Then  Tremain  attacked  Seymour  for  the  latter's  asser 
tion  that  the  Republican  administration  could  never  succeed 
in  crushing-  the  rebellion.  Tremain  said : 

Under  the  Constitution,  the  sole  power  of  conducting  this 
war  devolves  upon  the  General  Government.  ...  A  State 
Government  .  .  .  would  have  no  power  to  engage  in  war,  .  . 
to  ...  control  their  movements  one  moment  after  the  militia 
passed  beyond  the  State's  lines.  .  .  .  The  General  Govern 
ment  will  continue  in  the  hands  of  a  "  Republican  Organiza 
tion  "  until  the  4th  .of  March,  1865.  H»  tnen>  tne  Republican 
party  cannot  save  the  country  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  [if  it]  must  hold 
power  for  nearly  three  years,  why  should  I  waste  my  efforts 
in  a  vain  attempt  to  sustain  such  a  government.  .  .  .  Can  vol 
unteers  be  raised  upon  such  a  platform? 

Tremain  also  criticised,  as  contrary  to  history  and  truth, 
Seymour's  contention  that  the  responsibility  for  the  war 
rested  with  the  North.  If  the  people  desired  to  take  the 
first  step  toward  separation  by  an  amendment  to  the  con 
stitution,  they  would  by  their  votes  express  approval  of 
Seymour's  views.  But  if  they  were  determined  to  continue 
fighting  until  unconditional  surrender  was  obtained,  they 
would  vote  for  the  party  which  was  most  heartily  and  thor 
oughly  in  favor  of  carrying  the  war  forward,  and  which 
would  cooperate  most  effectually  with  the  national  adminis 
tration  for  that  purpose.1  Following  the  example  of  the 
Democratic  convention,  a  motion  to  print  200,000  copies 
of  Tremain's  speech,  of  which  50,000  should  be  in  German, 
was  carried. 

1  Tribune,  Oct.  I,  contains  the  speech  in  full. 


224       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [424 

The  permanent  organization  was  then  effected  with  Henry 
J.  Raymond  as  president.  His  speech  on  taking  the  chair, 
like  that  of  the  temporary  chairman,  ex-Judge  Johnson, 
was  an  argument  designed  to  prove  that  the  Democratic 
organization  of  New  York  was  disloyal,  and  a  plea  to  the 
convention  to  avert  by  wise  action  the  attempt  "  to  tear  this 
State  away  from  the  side  of  the  Government."  "  Treason/' 
said  Raymond, 

lurks  at  our  doors  ...  it  seeks  to  clutch  the  political  power 
of  this  great  State,  and  throw  it  virtually  and  practically  into 
the  scale  of  the  rebellion.  I  deny  that  the  contest  waged 
here  at  the  present  moment  is  a  political  contest,  or  that  the 
democracy  of  the  State  in  any  just  and  proper  sense  of  the 
word  can  be  held  responsible  for  it.1 

After  this,  William  Curtis  Noyes,  an  eminent  lawyer  of 
New  York  City,  and  one  of  the  leading  men  in  the  Republi 
can  party  of  this  State,  made  an  address,  emphasizing  the 
idea  that  the  assemblage  was  not  a  party  convention.2 

At  the  evening  session,  Noyes  read  a  letter  from  Morgan* 
declining  a  renomination,  and  then  presented  the  name  of 
General  Wadsworth.  General  Dix  and  Lyman  Tremain 
were  also  nominated.  Fenton,  passing  through  Syracuse 
on  the  day  of  the  convention,  had  requested  his  friends  to 
withdraw  his  name  from  consideration.3  The  first  ballot 
resulted  in  Wadsworth  receiving  234  votes,  Dix  no,  Tre 
main  34,  Dickinson  2;  necessary  to  a  choice,  191.  Tremain 
thereupon  moved  that  Wadsworth's  nomination  be  made 
unanimous,  which  motion  was  carried.4  The  first  place 
having  gone  to  a  Republican,  the  second  naturally  was  given 

1  Herald,  Sept.  25.  2  Ibid. 

3  Tribune,  Sept.  25. 

4  Tribune,  Sept.  25.     The  Herald,  Sept.  25,  gives  Tremain's  vote  as  33. 


425]  THE  REVIVAL  OF  PARTY  POLITICS  225 

to  a  War  Democrat.  Tremain  was  accordingly  named  for 
lieutenant-governor  by  acclamation.1  This  was  a  further 
blow  to  Thurlow  Weed,  since  neither  of  the  two  principal 
nominees  came  from  that  wing  of  the  party  which  was  com 
posed  mainly  of  former  Whigs,  despite  the  fact  that  several 
names  of  men  of  such  antecedents  were  put  forth  by  Weed.2 
The  rest  of  the  ticket  having  been  settled,  Parke  God 
win,  a  writer  of  note  and  one  of  the  editors  of  the  New 
York  Post,  reported  the  platform.  This  document  urged  the 
most  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war,  hailed  with  pro 
found  satisfaction  the  President's  preliminary  emancipation 
proclamation,  expressed  gratitude  to  the  army  and  navy, 
promised  to  labor  for  the  relief  of  their  distresses,  and 
favored  an  immediate  enrolment,  arming,  and  disciplining 
of  the  state  militia.3  Raymond  closed  the  convention  with 
congratulatory  remarks,  yet  ominously  reminded  his  audi 
tors  that  the  victory  was  not  to  be  won  easily.4  The  new 
state  committee  contained  a  majority  of  anti-Weed  men.5 

1  Herald,  Sept.  25. 

2  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  425  ;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Dec.  9,  15. 

3  Herald,  Sept.  25.  4  Ibid. 

5  The  committee  consisted  of  James  Kelly,  Isaac  Sherman,  Abram 
Wakeman,  Chas.  Jones,  J.  C.  Ferguson,  R.  C.  Mc.Cormick,  Hamilton 
Harris,  Chas.  R.  Richards,  Henry  R.  Low,  E.  M.  Merriam,  Edward 
Dodd,  Henry  Churchill,  P.  V.  Rogers,  Frank  Hiscock,  M.  S.  Cushman, 
N.  S.  Lincoln,  Wm.  Gleason,  Frederick  Julian,  D.  D.  S.  Brown,  Jas. 
C  Jackson,  Isaac  Fuller,  Walter  L.  Sessions,  Ben  Field,  and  Wilkes 
Angel.  The  statement  that  the  majority  of  these  were  anti-Weed  men 
is  based  upon  the  following:  Argus,  Sept.  26,  Oct.  6;  Albany  Evening 
Journal,  Nov.  10,  which  said :  "  When  that  Committee  [i.  e.  the  state 
•committee]  met  to  organize,  a  majority,  as  was  designed,  were  found 
to  be  in  sympathy  with  those  who  were  disposed  to  carry  the  State 
without  the  cooperation  of  Governor  Morgan,  William  M.  Evarts, 
Simeon  Draper,  the  Evening  Journal,  etc.,  etc" ;  Barnes'  Memoir  of 
Weed,  p.  425,  which  says :  "  So  as  to  drive  the  nail  home,  the  convention 
concluded  its  labors  by  appointing  a  state  committee  from  which 


226       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [426 

Seventeen  of  the  twenty-four  were  new  members.1  Simeon 
Draper  was  succeeded  as  chairman  by  a  radical,  state  Sen 
ator  Low.  Later,  the  party  headquarters  were  removed 
from  Albany  to  New  York  City.2  As  between  the  two 
wings  of  the  party,  the  labors  of  the  convention,  both  as  to 
platform  and  as  to  candidates,  resulted  in  a  complete  vic 
tory  for  the  Greeley  faction  and  a  correspondingly  severe 
defeat  for  Weed  and  conservative  Republicans.  Weed, 
however,  was  to  be  avenged,  if  not  by  his  own  power,  at 
least  by  the  course  of  events.  At  the  time,  however,  he  came 
out  heartily  for  the  ticket ; 3  and  right  through  the  cam 
paign  his  paper  showed  not  a  sign  of  treachery. 

'  Weed  men '  were  carefully  excluded."  This  is  an  exaggeration, 
since  Sherman,  Harris,  Wakeman,  and  Jones  at  least  were  Weed  men. 
Kelly  later  was  certainly  a  Weed  follower,  though  Barnes'  Memoir 
of  Weed,  p.  425  records  how  Weed  was  snubbed  by  Kelly  in  1862. 

1  Cf.  list  of  those  appointed  by  the  convention  of   1862    (as  given 
above)  with  the  names  of  the  Republican  State  Committee  appointed  in 
1861    (Appended    to    call    for    convention,    Albany    Evening    Journal, 
July  24,   1862). 

2  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Nov.  8,  Dec.  9;  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed, 
p.  425. 

3  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  25.     After  the  conventions  had  met, 
Dix  was  nominated  as  an  independent  candidate  by  a  New  York  City 
assemblage  calling  itself  the  Federal  Union  party   (Herald,  Oct.  19). 
The  General,  however,  declined  to  run  (Herald,  Oct.  25). 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION 

SOME  idea  of  the  arguments  advanced  during  the  cam 
paign  in  New  York  has  already  been  given  in  discussing  the 
legislative  address,  the  rise  of  party  spirit  during  the  sum 
mer,  and  the  proceedings  of  the  conventions.  Nevertheless, 
an  orderly  consideration  of  the  issues  in  this  State  may  be 
thought  justifiable,  even  though  they  were  not,  perhaps, 
very  different  here  from  what  they  were  elsewhere.  For 
New  York  was  one  of  the  principal  regions  where  anti- 
administration  strength  developed.  Its  political  history  at 
this  period  merits  consideration  not  only  because  it  was  typi 
cal  but  also  because  the  State  was  a  source  of  Democratic 
opposition  through  the  North. 

The. importance  of  the  election  was  dwelt  upon  by  both 
sides,  and  especially  by  the  Republican-Unionists.  Thus 
Wadsworth  said :  "  .  .  .  it  is  my  deliberate  and  solemn  con 
viction,  that  here  in  this  city  of  New  York,  more  even  than 
on  the  Shenandoah  or  in  the  valleys  of  Kentucky,  is  the 
battle  field  to  be  fought,  which  is  to  preserve  our  liberties 
and  perpetuate  our  country."  x  Tremain  rather  exaggerated 
when  he  declared  that  the  choice  of  Seymour  would  mean 
that  the  people  of  New  York  were  prepared  to  submit  to  the 
disintegration  of  the  Union.2  A  very  common  assertion  was 
that  the  election  of  Seymour  would  cause  the  rebels  to  re 
joice.  David  Dudley  Field,  in  a  speech  at  Geneva,  said: 

1  Herald,  Oct.  31.  2  Tribune,  Nov.  i. 

427]  227 


228       N£W  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [428 

'  The  election  is  to  have  a  significance  far  beyond  the  choice 
between  the  candidates.  It  is  a  solemn  expression  of  the 
opinion  of  the  people  respecting  public  affairs  in  this  most 
dreadful  exigency  .  .  .  and  that  expression  will  have  im 
mense  influence  upon  the  future  of  the  Rebellion."  *  George 
Bancroft,  then  a  resident  of  the  metropolis  and  a  War  Demo 
crat,  wrote :  "  The  voice  of  the  State  of  New  York  as  pro 
nounced  in  the  elections,  will  ring  through  the  civilized 
world.  Shall  we  not  do  our  part  to  make  that  voice  clear 
for  the  Union?"2 

Practically  the  only  issues  discussed  were  national  ones 
arising  out  of  or  relating  to  the  war.  The  main  fire  of 
Republican-Unionist  speakers  was  directed  toward  showing 
that  the  Democratic  organization  in  this  State  was  disloyal, 
or  at  least  likely,  if  successful,  to  hamper  or  embarrass  the 
national  administration  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  and 
that  Wadsworth's  election  would  strengthen  the  general 
government  because  he  would  act  in  harmony  with  it.  At  a 
speech  in  Brooklyn,  Cassius  M.  Clay  said,  "...  the  hang 
ing  of  such  men  as  Seymour  and  Wood  would  have  saved 
thousands  of  honest  lives."  3  A  Republican  ward  meeting, 
at  which  Dana  and  Raymond  were  present,  resolved  that 
every  vote  given  for  Horatio  Seymour  was  a  vote  for  trea 
son  ;  and  one  of  the  speakers  called  Seymour  "  the  traitor's 
candidate."4  William  Curtis  Noyes  said  that  when  the 
Democratic  party  had  been  shattered  at  Charleston  into 
fragments,  the  latter  had  formed  into  three  groups,  which 

1  Tribune,  Oct.  23. 

2  Tribune,   Oct.  21.     That  these  expressions  were  not  mere  election 
talk  is  indicated  by  the  sentiment  in  a  private  letter  of  William  Cullen 
Bryant  to  Lincoln,  stating  that  the  "  election  of  Seymour  as  Governor 
of  the   State  of   New   York  would  be  a  public  calamity"    (Godwin's 
Bryant,  p.  ii,  176). 

3  Herald,  Oct.  9.  4  Ibid. 


429]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  229 

he  characterized  as  good,  worse,  and  worst.  The  good  were 
those  Democrats  who  had  joined  the  Union  party  move 
ment,  the  worst  were  the  rebels.  "  The  worse  are  those/' 
he  went  on, 

who  .  .  .  were  cold,  indifferent,  doubting  of  success,  taking  no 
share  in  the  patriotic  excitement  which  prevailed  a  year  ago 
last  April,  .  .  .  recently  crystallizing  into  a  party  opposed  to 
the  Administration — opposed  to  the  war  in  substance.  .  .  . 
Not  indeed  that  they  are  all  traitors.  .  .  .  But  I  say  they  are 
in  sympathy  with  them ;  that  they  are  willing  to  submit  to 
their  demands.  .  .  .  The  designs  of  the  leaders  are  base,  dis 
loyal. 

Raymond  declared  that  Seymour's  election  would  give  aid 
and  comfort  to  the  enemy,  and  he  desired  "  to  see  the  sym 
pathizers  with  treason  and  rebellion  left  where  the  War  of 
1812  left  the  Federalists,  and  where  the  Revolution  left  the 
Tories."2  Henry  B.  Stanton  said: 

Disguise  it  as  you  will,  ...  it  is  the  government  and  its  sup 
porters  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Rebels  and  their  sympa 
thizers  on  the  other  .  .  .  whatever  they  may  intend,  the  scope 
and  drift  of  the  policy  maintained  by  Horatio  Seymour  and 
Fernando  Wood  is  to  give  aid  and  comfort  to  the  Rebels  and 
to  cripple  the  Administration  in  a  vigorous  prosecution  of 
the  war.8 

Said  the  Tribune: 

Every  voter  in  this  State  whose  sympathies  are  .  .  .   [with 

1  Herald,  Oct.  9- 

*  Tribune,  Oct.  7 ;  similar  sentiments  were  expressed  by  Raymond  at 
Syracuse  {Tribune,  Oct.  21)  and  at  Malone  {Tribune,  Oct.  25). 
3  Tribune,  Oct.  9. 


230       #£^  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [430 

the]  Slaveholders'  Rebellion  is  a  supporter  of  Seymour. 
Every  voter  that  asserts  that  the  Southern  Rebellion  was  pro 
voked  and  all  but  justified  by  Northern  Aggression  is  for 
Seymour.  .  .  .  Every  voter  who,  while  more  or  less  openly 
discouraging  volunteering,  has  proclaimed  the  impracticabil 
ity  of  drafting  men  to  fight  in  this  war,  is  for  Seymour.1 

Dickinson  contrasted  Wadsworth's  course  with  Sey 
mour's.  The  former  gave  his  three  sons  to  the  cause,  and 
himself  volunteered  in  any  capacity.  "  About  the  same 
time,"  Dickinson  continued,  Seymour 

left  his  family,  .  .  .  but  not  for  the  seat  of  the  war.  He 
hied  himself  away  ...  in  the  opposite  direction,  and  for 
nearly  a  half  a  year  hid  himself  among  the  lakes  and  rivers 
and  romantic  woodlands  and  inland  towns  of  Wisconsin,  and 
his  tongue  was  .  .  .  silent  on  the  subject  of  denouncing  the 
Rebellion.  .  .  .  There  we  may  suppose  he  basked  and  balanced 
and  watched  and  waited  and  turned  and  twisted  until  Autumn, 
when  a  small  knot  of  defunct,  defeated,  desperate  and  despic 
able  politicians  .  .  .  came  to  his  relief.2 

Seymour's  past  utterances  were  used  against  him  by  his  op 
ponents.  They  quoted  from  the  address  made  by  him  at 
the  Albany  convention  of  January,  1861,  as  well  as  from 
his  speeches  made  during  the  campaign  of  that  year.  They 
reminded  him  that  he  had  then  said :  "  If  it  is  true  that 
slavery  must  be  abolished  to  save  this  Union,  then  the 

1  Tribune,   Oct.  8.     The  Albany  Evening  Journal  contained  similar 
editorials  and  editorial  paragraphs,  e.  g.  Oct.  9,  25. 

2  Herald,  Oct.  9.     Seymour  was   also   accused  of   having   failed  to 
contribute  toward  raising  and  equipping  volunteers  (Tribune,  Oct.  8)  ; 
though  he  had  a  military  education,  it  was  said,  he  had  not  like  Wads- 
worth  offered  his  services  to  the  government  (William  Curtis  Noyes' 
speech,   Tribune,  Nov.  4). 


43  1]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  231 

people  of  the  South  should  be  allowed  to  withdraw  them 
selves  from  that  government  which  cannot  give  them  the 
protection  guaranteed  by  its  terms."  Tremain  affirmed 
that  after  the  war  had  broken  out  Seymour  had  publicly 
spoken  at  Utica  against  the  right  of  coercion  ;  and  that  upon 
returning  to  Albany,  he  had  declared  that  the  Western 
states  would  never  pay  the  great  war  debt  and  that  they  were 
considering  a  Southern  proposition  of  free  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi  on  condition  of  neutrality.2 

Seymour's  assertions  that  he  was  loyal  and  that  he  fav 
ored  the  war  were,  Republican-Unionists  averred,  but  sham 
protestations  or  at  best  "  impelled  by  the  exigencies  of  the 
candidate,  not  by  the  feelings  of  the  man."  He  was  called 
a  trickster,4  and  his  party  a  "  bogus  war  party."  5  Greeley, 
in  a  characteristic  editorial  entitled  "  Brand  the  Deceivers," 
opened  with  this  vigorous  denunciation  of  the  Democrats: 
:<  They  lie  —  consciously,  wickedly  lie,  —  who  tell  you  that  to 
support  Seymour,  Wood  and  Co.,  is  the  true  way  to  invig 
orate  the  prosecution  of  the  war  .  .  .  "  6  Dickinson  said  : 
''  This  party  with  its  proposition  of  peace  having  been  ex 
posed,  abashed  and  ingloriously  overthrown  last  year,  has 
covered  its  framework  this  year  with  a  veneering  of  a  differ 
ent  shade,  but  quite  too  flimsy  to  deceive."  7  David  Dudley 
Field  declared  :  "  General  Wadsworth  believes  that  the  only 
road  to  peace  leads  through  war  —  fierce,  resolute,  unflinch 
ing  war  .  .  .  Mr.  Seymour  .  .  .  would  have  half  war  and 
half  accommodation.  He  is  for  peace  on  any  terms,  so  that 


at  Brooklyn  (Tribune,  Nov.  i)  ;  Tribune  editorial,  Oct. 
16;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  27;  Dickinson  at  New  York  City 
(Tribune,  Oct.  9). 

2  Herald,  Oct.  31.  3  Tribune,  Oct.  8. 

4  Tribune,  Oct.  15.  *  Ibid. 

6  Tribune,  Oct.  30.  7  Herald,  Oct.  9. 


232       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [432 

he  and  his  party  may  have  the  power."  l  In  this  connection, 
some  of  the  Republican-Unionists  asserted  that  if  Seymour 
was  elected,  not  another  New  York  regiment  would  leave 
for  the  war  and  that  no  more  soldiers  would  be  enlisted  or 
drafted  in  this  State  to  recruit  the  forces  already  raised  by 
it.2  David  Dudley  Field  said :  "  Mr.  Seymour  and  his  sup 
porters  do  not  propose  to  send  more  troops  into  the  field. 
They  have  done  little  towards  the  last  two  levies."  3  Lyman 
Tremain  prophesied  that  Seymour's  election  would  bring 
the  power  of  the  State  into  collision  with  the  national  gov 
ernment.4 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  Copperheadism  was  very 
weak  at  that  time  in  New  York  State.  The  great  mass 
of  the  voters  were,  in  1862  at  least,  heartily  in  favor  of  sup 
porting  the  war.  During  the  summer  of  that  year  there 
was  a  wave  of  meetings  through  the  State,  the  purpose 
of  which  was  to  encourage  enlistments,  raise  money  to  pay 
bounties,  and  expiess  determination  to  uphold  the  national 
administration  in  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war.  Among 
the  speakers  on  these  occasions,  the  committeemen  ap 
pointed  in  each  congressional  district  to  aid  the  movement, 
and  those  who  in  other  ways  engaged  in  this  labor,  were  the 
following  prominent  Democrats  who  refused  to  give  up  their 
party:  Horatio  Seymour,  Francis  Kernan,  William  Kelly, 
Martin  Kalbfleisch,  Gilbert  Dean,  Henry  C.  Murphy, 
Emanuel  B.  Hart,  Sanford  E.  Church,  Dean  Richmond, 
Richard  O'Gorman,  Erastus  Corning,  and  John  Ganson.5 
In  January,  1863,  tne  Albany  Evening  Journal  said  that  it 

1  Tribune,  Oct.  3.  2  E.  g.  Tribune,  Oct.  30. 

3  Tribune,  Oct.  27;  also  Field's  speech  at  New  York  City  (Tribune, 
Oct.  3)  for  the  same  accusation. 

4  Herald,  Oct.  31. 

5  Argus,   Oct.  20,    1863,  confirmed  in  part  by  various  notices  in  the 
Herald  and  Tribune  during  the  summer  of  1862. 


4333  THE  TRWMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  233 

was  misinformed  if  Corning  as  a  member  of  the  committee 
of  ways  and  means  of  the  House  of  Representatives  had 
not  "  gone  cheerfully  and  heartily  with  the  Republican  ma 
jority,  in  favor  of  every  Administration  measure  designed 
to  carry  on  the  War  with  energy  and  vigor;"  while  Rich 
mond,  this  same  paper  said,  had  freely  given  his  services 
and  money  in  organizing  and  equipping  troops.1  That 
which  gave  some  foundation  to  the  accusations  of  the  Re 
publican-Unionists  was  the  disloyal  utterances  of  such 
Democrats  as  the  two  Woods,  the  vagueness  of  the  plans  of 
the  Democrats  for  attaining  peace,2  and  the  very  fact  that 
they  persisted  in  maintaining  a  partisan  opposition  in  the 
midst  of  so  great  a  contest,  when  parties  meant  division  at 
the  North  and  a  consequent  weakening  of  the  efforts  to 
suppress  the  rebellion. 

This  last  point  was  fully  brought  out  by  Republican- 
Unionists  during  the  campaign  of  1862.  They  made  much 
of  the  necessity  of  laying  aside  party  and  of  the  lack  of 
patriotism  in  not  doing  so.  Here  the  accusers  seem  to  have 
had  more  justice  on  their  side,  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
country's  needs  if  not  from  the  mere  political  point  of  view. 
Dickinson  and  Tremain,  both  for  many  years  leaders  in  the 
Democratic  organization,  were  especially  fitted  to  press  home 
this  charge,  and  they  did  so.  Dickinson  was  a  man  of  elo 
quence,  and  it  must  have  been  thrilling  to  hear  this  white- 
haired  statesman,  who  had  received  at  the  hands  of  the 
Democracy  the  lieutenant-governorship  and  the  United 
States  senatorship,  and  who  had  been  prominently  men 
tioned  in  its  councils  for  the  presidential  nomination,  de 
nounce  his  former  associates  for  keeping  up  party  spirit  in 
such  a  crisis.  In  one  speech  he  said : 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  15,  1863. 

2  John  Van  Buren  in  particular  kept  on  advocating  some  very  pecu 
liar  views  on  the  subject  of  a  peace  convention. 


234       NRW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [434 

These  two  men  [Wadsworth  and  Seymour]  have  been  placed 
in  nomination  by  opposing  organizations  .  .  .  the  one  by  the 
loyal  masses  acting  as  a  Union  organization,  regardless  and 
independent  of  former  political  opinion,  .  .  .  the  other  brought 
forward  by  political  guerrillas,  who  have  crawled  from  be 
neath  the  popular  avalanche  of  last  year  to  repeat  their  efforts 
at  imposition  under  new  and  improved  disguises — the  peace 
party  patriots  of  1861,  the  apologists  of  rebellion  and  the 
villifiers  of  the  administration.  ...  All  loyal  men  are  alike 
interested  in  putting  down  the  rebellion,  .  .  .  and  why  should 
they  not  act  together?  The  Republican  party  ...  in  theory 
and  practice  lays  aside  for  the  occasion,  as  it  did  last  year,  its 
distinctive  action  as  a  party,  and  its  members  unite  in  com 
mon  with  all  loyal  Democrats,  and  others  who  are  so  disposed, 
upon  a  platform  inculcating  no  party  ends.  ...  I  defy  and 
scorn  all  ringing  of  party  gongs  to  gather  the  hungry  and 
alarm  the  timid.1 

The  Democrats  replied  that  it  was  the  Republicans  who 
refused  to  abandon  their  political  organization  and  asserted 
that  the  course  of  the  administration  and  its  subordinates 
had  been  from  the  very  beginning  prescriptive  of  non-Re 
publicans.2  Seymour,  as  in  the  convention,  defended  the 
propriety  of  maintaining  at  such  a  juncture  an  opposition. 
Its  retention,  he  declared,  was  justified  by  the  radical  char 
acter  of  the  ticket  nominated  at  Syracuse.3  John  B.  Haskin, 
once  an  anti-Lecompton  member  of  Congress  from  New 
York,  charged  that  the  Syracuse  convention  was  nothing 
but  a  radical  Republican  affair,  controlled  by  Greeley  and 
his  friends;  and  he  appealed  to  the  Union  Democrats  who 

1  Herald,   Oct.  9.     See  also  another   War  Democrat's  utterance  on 
the  same  subject — General  John  Cochrane  at  Clean  (Tribune,  Oct.  30). 

2  Argus,    Sept.    u;    Rochester   Daily    Union,    quoted   by   the   Argus, 
Sept.  18. 

3  Herald,  Oct.  23. 


435]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  235 

had  a  year  ago  supported  the  ticket  headed  by  Dickinson,  to 
leave  the  Republican  party.  "  It  has  now  thrown  off  the 
cloak,"  he  said.  "  It  is  the  pure  abolition  party  of  the 
country  .  .  .  The  Union  movement  in  this  State  has  been 
turned  by  the  abolition  contractors  into  a  pure  abolition 
movement."  x 

The  charges  of  the  Republican-Unionists  evidently  told 
and  put  the  Democrats  on  the  defensive.  Seymour  de 
voted  quite  some  attention  to  refuting  such  accusations.  He 
affirmed  that  he  was  earnestly  for  the  war.  At  the  great 
Cooper  Institute  ratification  meeting  on  October  I3th,  he 
asked  why  "  those  who  supported  their  country's  cause  were 
branded  as  traitors?"  He  then  defended  his  own  record, 
saying  that  "  he  had  addressed  more  meetings  in  support  of 
the  war  than  he  would  address  in  support  of  the  ticket  on 
which  his  name  stood."  The  allegation  that  he  had  not 
given  pecuniary  aid  to  the  war,  he  pronounced  false.  He 
asserted  that  the  President  would  not  be  embarrassed  if  the 
Democrats  won  in  New  York.2  In  Brooklyn  Seymour  said : 

I  recognize  the  fact  now  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  who 
would  stand  by  its  [i.  e.  the  country's]  institutions,  to  see 
that  the  whole  measure  of  his  influence  and  all  the  weight  of 
his  power  are  thrown  in  that  battlefield  on  the  side  of  the  flag 
of  our  Union; 

and  he  referred  to  his  efforts  to  "  invoke  our  young  men  to 
rally  around  the  standard  of  our  country."  Again  he  de 
clared  :  "  We  say  then  to  this  government,  you  have  our 
firm  reliance,  our  confidence,  our  unconditional  loyalty 
...  ;"  and  he  maintained  that  this  had  ever  been  the  posi- 

1  Herald,  Oct.  31. 

1  Herald,  Oct.  14.  With  regard  to  this  speech,  see  Reminiscences  of 
Richard  Lathers,  p.  180. 


236       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [436 

tion  of  the  Democrats,  "  not  now  alone,  .  .  .  [but]  one 
year  ago,  when  many  of  our  Republican  friends  were  de 
nouncing  the  Administration."  Had  the  loyalty  of  the 
Republicans  been  unconditional,  he  asked.  And  he  con 
cluded  with  this  noble  sentiment : 

Now  let  me  say  this  to  the  higher  law  men  of  the  North,  and 
to  the  higher  law  men  of  the  South,  and  to  the  whole  world 
.  .  .  that  this  Union  never  shall  be  severed,  no,  never.  Would 
that  my  voice  could  be  heard  through  every  Southern  State, 
and  I  would  tell  them  their  mistake.1 

The  Democrats  replied  to  their  opponents  by  assailing  the 
alleged  revolutionary  proceedings  of  the  Republicans,  claim 
ing  that  the  latter  were  the  real  adversaries  of  the  President. 
The  New  York  Herald  expressed  a  common  opinion  when 
it  said : 

The  conservatives  are  not  opposed  to  the  Administration  so 
long  as  the  Administration  is  not  opposed  to  the  constitu 
tion.  On  the  contrary,  the  conservatives  have  supported  the 
Administration  and  the  constitution  by  liberal  supplies  of  men 
and  money.  The  abolitionists  are  opposed  to  the  Administra 
tion;  for  they  have  refused  to  enlist.  ...  As  Greeley  con 
fesses,  the  abolitionists  have  never  yet  smelt  powder  during 
the  war.  .  .  .2 

Seymour  from  the  platform  censured  as  pernicious  prac 
tices  the  acts  of  insubordinate  radical  generals,  the  fusion  of 
the  spheres  of  the  three  governmental  departments,  the  Al- 
toona  convention  of  governors,  and  the  work  of  the  National 

1  Herald,  Oct.  23.     Cf.  Tilden's  Letters,  i,  p.  166. 

8  Herald,  Nov.  4 ;  similar  editorial,  entitled  "  Who  are  the  Traitors  ?" 
in  the  Argus,  Sept.  20;  another  entitled  "Abolition  Disloyalty,"  Argus, 
Sept.  15 ;  another,  "Abolition  Disorganization,"  Argus,  Sept.  22. 


437]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  237 

War  Committee  of  New  York  City,  which  he  pronounced 
"  one  of  the  most  dangerous  and  revolutionary  features  of 
the  day."  *  In  another  speech,  Seymour  said : 

Who  among  the  journalists  ....  endeavored  to  force  their 
views  and  policy  upon  the  government,  without  respect  to  the 
embarrassments  they  might  occasion?  .  .  .  the  men  who  de 
nounce  you  and  me  as  being  untrue  to  the  institutions  of  the 
country  ...  I  charge  against  them  .  .  .  that  they  have  been 
foremost  in  every  measure  calculated  to  embarrass  the  gov 
ernment,  and  to  hinder  and  retard  the  successful  prosecution 
of  the  war.  .  .  .  2 

The  Albany  Argus  printed  daily  two  or  three  columns  of 
quotations  from  the  Tribune,  the  Times,  and  the  Post 
attacking  the  administration.3  Speaking  of  the  "  Little 
Villain  "  Raymond,  the  Argus  said :  "  Behold  the  record  of 
treason  to  the  government,  spiced  by  abuse  of  President 
Lincoln,  slanders  of  our  armies,  and  assaults  upon  our  gen 
erals,  furnished  by  his  own  pen."  Then  followed  two 
columns  of  extracts  from  the  Times  labeled  thus :  "  Ray 
mond  Predicts  and  Justifies  a  Usurpation,"  "  Raymond  Dis 
courages  Enlistments,"  "  Raymond  Assails  the  Government 
as  Imbecile,"  "  Raymond  Demands  the  Removal  of  Mc- 
Clellan,"  "  Raymond  Calls  for  a  Change  of  Generals, 
Cabinet  and  President,"  etc.4  The  effect  of  these  mutual 
recriminations  was  to  add  bitterness  to  the  campaign.  Each 
side  arrogated  to  itself  the  merit  of  patriotism  and  de 
nounced  the  other  as  disloyal.  Threats  were  made  that 

1  Herald,  Oct.  14.     For  a  similar  utterance  by  James  T.  Brady,  see 
Herald,  Oct.  28.     The  Argus  too  denounced  the  Altoona  meeting  and 
the  New  York  War  Committee  (Argus,  Sept.  15,  20,  26). 

2  Herald,  Oct.  23. 

3  Argus,  Oct.  23  to  31  inclusive. 
*  Argus,  Oct.  21. 


238       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [438 

Republicans  would  be  assaulted  in  the  streets  unless  they 
ceased  from  calling  Seymour's  followers  traitors.1 

Abolition  and  the  President's  proclamation 2  naturally  oc 
cupied  a  large  share  of  attention  during  the  campaign.  The 
Republicans  showed  no  hesitation  in  defending  Lincoln's 
course — not  even  in  New  York  City  and  Brooklyn  where  it 
might  have  been  expected  to  prove  unpopular ;  though  Weed, 
after  the  election,  asserted  that  he  had  endeavored  to  pre 
vent  the  bringing  of  Wadsworth  to  New  York  City  to 
speak  there,  because  it  would  emphasize  too  much  the  anti- 
slavery  issue.  Wadsworth's  views  and  past  actions  stamped 
him  as  preeminently  an  abolition  candidate.  Immediately 
after  his  nomination  he  was  serenaded  at  Washington  and 
his  remarks  on  this  occasion  were  published  in  the  New 
York  papers.  He  said : 

It  would  be  criminal  folly  in  the  government  if  it  had  over 
looked  one  great  element  of  Southern  society  which  may  be, 
and  will  be,  as  we  use  it,  an  element  of  strength  or  weakness — 
to  have  overlooked  .  .  .  that  we  are  fighting  against  an  aris 
tocracy  supported  by  slavery;  and  it  would  have  been  worse 
than  folly  to  suppose  that  we  could  suppress  the  Rebellion 
and  yet  save  that  aristocracy.  .  .  .  Gentlemen,  secession  and 
war  .  .  .  have  changed  our  relation  to  that  institution  which 
is  the  cause  and  source  of  the  war.  .  .  . 3 

In  his  letter  of  acceptance,  Wadsworth  declared  that  he  en 
tirely  approved  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  and  com 
mended  it  to  the  voters  of  New  York  as  an  effectual,  speedy, 
and  humane  way  of  subduing  the  rebellion.  He  asserted 

1  These  threats  are  referred  to  in  Tribune  editorials  of  Oct.  i  and 
24,  and  in  a  Herald  editorial  of  Oct.  14. 
*  This  was  the  preliminary  proclamation  of  September,  1862. 
8  Herald,  Sept.  28. 


439]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  239 

that  the  war  had  proved  that  the  fears  of  black  insurrec 
tions  were  without  foundation,  and  that  emancipation  once 
accomplished,  the  North  would  be  relieved  from  any  danger 
of  a  great  influx  of  African  laborers  to  compete  with  the 
whites,  while  the  negro  population  already  in  the  North 
would  "  drift  to  the  South  where  it  will  find  a  congenial 
climate  and  vast  tracts  of  land  .  .  .  "  *  The  resolutions 
and  speakers  at  the  Republican-Unionist  meetings  generally 
endorsed  the  proclamation  on  the  grounds  of  expediency  and 
necessity,  maintained  the  constitutionality  of  the  measure, 
denounced  slavery  as  the  force  upholding  the  rebellion,  and 
affirmed  that,  aside  from  these  considerations,  it  was  the 
duty  of  every  loyal  citizen  to  sustain  the  government  in  the 
course  which  it  had  decided  to  adopt.  Even  the  War  Demo 
crats  defended  the  proclamation  as  a  military  necessity. 
Dickinson,  who  had  upheld  Southern  rights  for  so  many 
years,  now  said  that  "  he  was  no  political  abolitionist,  but 
in  the  exercise  of  the  war  power,  he  was  for  taking  that 
thing  [i.  e.  slavery]  out  by  the  roots."  2 

The  adherents  of  Seymour  on  the  other  hand  denounced 
the  Emancipation  Proclamation  as  unconstitutional,  as 
threatening  white  labor  at  the  North,  as  likely  to  lead  to  a 
servile  war,  as  consolidating  Southern  sentiment  against  the 
Union  while  at  the  same  time  dividing  the  North,  and  as  de 
priving  loyal  innocent  men  of  their  property  for  the  crimes 
of  the  guilty.3  Richard  O'Gorman,  a  prominent  New 
York  City  Democrat,  declared  that  the  proclamation  was  a 
"barbarous,  disgraceful,  hideous  violation  of  the  morality 

1  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Oct.  6. 

3  Herald,    Oct.   25.    General   John    Cochrane's   attitude   was   similar 
(see  his  speech  at  Olean,  Tribune,  Nov.  i). 

3  E.  g.  Seymour's  speech,  Herald,  Oct.  14 ;  resolutions  of  Brooklyn 
meeting,  Tribune,  Oct.  24. 


240       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [440 

of  Christendom/'  a  sentiment  which  was  greeted  with  great 
cheering.1  The  Democrats  liked  to  quote  the  President's  re 
ply  to  a  Chicago  delegation  in  September,  1862,  wherein  he 
declared  that  an  emancipation  proclamation  "  must  be  neces 
sarily  inoperative  "  and  that  "  no  possible  good  can  result 
from  such  a  proclamation."  2  In  this  connection,  it  was 
very  common  to  quote  the  Crittenden  resolution  as  to  the 
purpose  of  the  war.3 

Another  issue  emphasized  during  the  campaign  in  New 
York  was  that  of  the  arbitrary  acts  of  the  administration. 
Here  the  Republican-Unionists  were  on  the  defensive.  An 
especially  bitter  assault  on  the  government  was  that  con 
tained  in  a  speech  of  Richard  O'Gorman,  in  which  he  said : 

Two  years  ago  we  were  governed  according  to  the  terms  of  a 
written  constitution,  by  which  we  fondly  thought  freedom  of 
person,  of  speech,  of  the  press,  were  forever  guaranteed,  for 
ever  secured.  .  .  .  To-day,  the  personal  liberty  of  every  one 
of  us  here  in  this  city  .  .  .  depends,  not  on  the  constitution 
or  the  law,  but  on  the  good  pleasure  of  one  man  and  his  dele 
gates.  By  sudden,  secret,  and  lawless  arrests,  the  exercise  of 
free  criticism  of  the  conduct  of  public  affairs  has  been  pun 
ished,  and  as  far  as  possible  suppressed.  While  the  adherents 
of  one  political  party  seem  to  revel  in  unlimited  license,  all 
others  are  condemned  to  silence,  or  if  they  speak  at  all,  with 
"  bated  breath  and  whispering  humbleness."  .  .  .  While  one 
set  of  men  can  freely,  boldly,  insolently  criticise  and  threaten 
the  government,  express  their  contempt  for  its  constitution, 

1  Herald,  Oct.  9. 

2  Brooklyn   meeting    (Tribune,    Oct.   24);    New   York    City   meeting 
(Herald,  Oct.  14)  ;  Raskin  at  Tarrytown  meeting  (Herald,  Oct.  31)  ; 
"Abraham  Lincoln's  View  of  the  President's   Proclamation  "—Argus, 
Sept.  27. 

3  For   this    resolution,    see    Rhodes,    History    of   the    United   States, 
iii,  p.  464. 


44I]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  241 

make  and  unmake  generals,  plan  campaigns,  alter  policy,  knock 
down,  appoint,  supersede, — to  all  others  is  allotted  the  part  of 
passive  obedience;  on  their  lips,  remonstrance  is  disloyalty.1 

Seymour  condemned  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  by  the  President,  and  attacked  the  doctrine  that  free 
dom  of  speech  in  the  loyal  states  was  to  be  restrained  be 
cause  there  were  disloyal  states  in  the  South.2  Another 
Democratic  speaker  asserted  that  the  people  of  Vienna  and 
St.  Petersburg  were  free,  while  the  Americans  were  slaves.3 
General  Wadsworth  was  accused  of  participating  in  these 
arbitrary  actions  by  the  apprehension  of  the  editors  and  pro 
prietors  of  two  Harrisburg  (Pennsylvania)  papers.4 

Dickinson  gave  what  now  appears  the  most  sensible  and 
patriotic  reply  to  this  line  of  attack.     He  said  : 

This  rebellion  cannot  well  be  sued  by  summons  and  complaint ; 
nor  brought  to  trial  before  a  justice  of  the  peace  or  referees 
under  the  code,  nor  silenced  by  a  grand  jury.  .  .  .  Among  the 
first  rights  and  privileges  and  highest  and  holiest  duties  and 
obligations  of  tfre  government  is  the  preservation  of  its  own 
existence.  A  war  of  rebellion  is  a  fearful  and  alarming  real 
ity,  and  is  neither  to  be  run  away  from  nor  quieted  by  reciting 
boarding-school  homilies.  .  .  .  The  course  of  the  President  in 
arresting  spies  and  the  apologists  of  rebellion — in  suppressing 
treasonable  presses — in  suspending  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
....  entitles  him  to  the  admiration  and  thanks  of  every  good 
citizen.  Let  assassins  whet  their  knives — let  spies  and  traitors 
and  pimps  and  informers  scowl  and  gibber  and  whisper  dis 
content  because  the  "  freedom  of  speech  "  is  abridged — let  con 
spiracy  and  treason  plot  at  their  infernal  conferences — let  poli 
ticians  scheme  and  elongate  and  contract  their  gum-elastic 

1  Herald,  Oct.  9-  2  Herald,  Oct.  14. 

8  Herald,  Oct.  29.  4  Argus,  Oct.  28. 


242       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [442 

platforms  to  suit  emergencies,  and  when  all  this  has  been  done 
the  action  of  the  President  in  these  measures,  though  probably 
not  free  from  mistakes  and  errors,  will  be  approved  by  honest 
men  and  in  the  sight  of  Heaven,  and  will,  when  rebellion  shall 
only  be  remembered  for  the  blood  it  has  shed  and  the  wrongs 
it  has  perpetrated,  "  stand  the  test  of  talents  and  of  time."  a 

The  Democrats  also  assailed  their  opponents  because  of 
the  faults  of  the  administration  at  Washington  and  its  al 
leged  corruption.  Nothing  was  said  about  the  state  gov 
ernment,  because  since  the  shoddy  frauds  at  the  opening  of 
the  war,  nothing  had  come  to  light  which  would  have  served 
as  grounds  for  an  attack  in  that  quarter.  Over  and  over 
again,  taking  their  cue  from  Seymour's  speech  in  the  state 
convention,  the  Democratic  orators  declared  that  the  Re 
publicans  were  not  able  to  manage  successfully  the  na 
tional  government.  Van  Buren  said  : 

It  is  our  purpose  to  overthrow  this  Republican  party  and  the 
political  sharks  that  follow  in  their  [sic]  wake,  to  devour  what 
they  throw  overboard  ...  it  is  my  deliberate  judgment  that 
the  most  contemptible  failure  in  the  shape  of  government  is  the 
government  of  the  republican  States  of  North  America.  .  .  . 
We  propose  to  stop  stealing  for  ninety  days  (laughter)  and 
have  the  money  raised  by  taxation  applied  to  pay  the  soldiers, 
to  feed  and  clothe  them.  .  .  .2 

Seymour  maintained  that  it  was  vain  to  send  troops  to  the 
field  while  there  was  lacking  an  honest  administration  to 
sustain  them  there  in  the  necessities  of  life.  "  I  tell  you,"  he 
said,  "that  the  government  which  conceals  frauds  committed 

1  Herald,  Oct.  9. 

2  Herald,  Oct.  14.     In  another  speech,  Van  Buren  asserted  that  the 
government    was    the    most    corrupt    one    on    the    face    of   the    earth 
(Herald,  Oct.  23). 


443]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  243 

against  itself,  and  which  considers  it  unpatriotic  to  leave 
them  bare  is  on  the  road  to  destruction."  And  he  cited  the 
reports  of  various  congressional  committees  which  had  re 
vealed  the  existence  of  corruption.1  Fernando  Wood  de 
clared  that  the  administration  had  been  "  imbecile,  venal, 
and  corrupt,"  else  it  would  have  suppressed  the  rebellion 
long  ago.  He  accused  the  Republicans  either  of  continuing 
the  war  for  their  own  purposes  or  of  lacking  "  the  heart 
or  the  brains  to  succeed  "  in  making  peace.  "  Be  they  weak 
or  be  they  wicked,"  he  went  on, 

they  cannot  succeed.  I  am  going  to  Washington,  and  when  I 
reach  there  I  will  go  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in 
my  sovereign  capacity  as  your  representative,  ...  I  will  tell 
him  that  without  we  have  a  change  of  measures,  that  so  help 
me  God !  we  will  have  a  change  of  men.2 

In  reply  to  the  charge  of  corruption,  the  Republican- 
Unionists  acknowledged  its  presence  but  pleaded  in  ex 
tenuation  the  circumstances.  '  The  service  couldn't  wait," 
said  the  Tribune.  "  Sharpers  ...  of  course,  took  advan 
tage  of  this  .  .  .  Congress  (Republican  all  over)  at  once 
went  after  these  robbers  with  a  sharp  stick."  And  it  went 
on  to  argue  that  men  occupying  offices  where  dishonesty  had 
been  brought  to  light,  e.  g.  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  Com 
missary-General,  and  the  Quartermaster-General,  were  not 
Republicans.3  Grant  that  the  administration  has  made  mis 
takes,  said  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  should  support  be 
therefore  refused  ?  "  It  is  doing  its  best.  ...  It  is  setting 
to  work  with  such  light  as  it  has  to  guide  its  footsteps  to  sub 
due  the  insurgent  States.  .  .  .  And  it  needs  to  have  its 

1  Herald,  Oct.  23.  *  Tribune,  Oct.  25. 

3  Tribune,  Oct.  15,  24. 


244 


NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  IV  AR 


hands  sustained  all  the  more  because,  in  some  respects,  it 
has  faltered  and  failed."  *  Moreover,  Unionists  argued 
that  the  President  must  hold  office  until  March  4th,  1865, 
and  that  therefore,  if  the  country  was  to  be  saved,  it  must  be 
by  his  administration.2  The  Tribune,  drawing  the  logical 
conclusion  from  this  consideration  and  such  speeches  as 
Wood's,  came  out  with  an  editorial  entitled  "A  Conspiracy 
to  Overthrow  the  Government,"  in  which  it  said  :  "This  sud 
den,  bold  and  confident  rush  for  power  in  this  State  .  .  . 
is  nothing  but  a  conspiracy  to  overthrow  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  with  the  help  of  Rebel  arms  .  .  .  The  votes  cast 
for  Seymour  may  add  a  Revolution  in  the  North  to  our 
war  in  the  South."  It  branded  Fernando  Wood  as  Catiline, 
and  elsewhere  said  :  "  We  need  not  dwell  upon  the  details 
of  the  terror.  .  .  .  There  will  be  blood  enough  ...  to 
satisfy  the  sanguinary  thirst  even  of  old  Marat  .  .  .  '  It 
recalled  the  dreadful  days  when,  during  the  New  York  City 
police  riots,  Mayor  Wood  with  eight  hundred  stalwart  men 
barricaded  the  City  Hall  and  set  at  defiance  the  law  until 
overawed  by  the  Seventh  Regiment. 

The  Democrats  when  criticising  the  administration 
claimed  that  their  party  could  end  the  war.  John  Van 
Buren's  plan,  repeatedly  advocated  by  him  during  the  cam 
paign,  was  to  capture  Richmond,  call  a  convention  and  in 
vite  the  Southerners  to  enter  it  under  the  constitution  as  it 
was  ;  and  if  they  refused,  to  let  them  go  in  peace.4  Seymour 
was  more  cautious,  even  if  more  vague.  He  expressed  his 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,   Oct.  25  ;  similar  arguments,  Tremain  at 
Brooklyn    (Tribune,    Nov.    i)    and    Wadsworth    at    New    York    City 
(Herald,  Oct.  31). 

2  Tribune,  Oct.  3;  Wadsworth's  speech  in  New  York  City  (Herald, 
Oct.  31). 

8  Tribune,  Oct.  30. 

4  Herald,  Oct.  14;  Argus,  Oct.  38. 


445]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  245 

program  thus :  "  We  propose  to  bring  this  war  to  a  speedy 
and  successful  conclusion  because,  my  friends,  we  have  a 
definite  and  determinate  object,  and  that  is,  to  restore  the 
Union  as  it  was."  *  How  this  was  to  be  done,  Seymour  did 
not  say.  James  T.  Brady,  hiding  the  indefiniteness  of  his 
scheme  behind  metaphor,  said : 

So  if  we  leave  the  Republican  party  to  conduct  these  sisters  of 
ours — erring,  if  you  please — back  into  our  ranks,  if  it  looks 
back  upon  them  in  the  hour  of  republican  triumph,  each  of 
these  sisters  will  disappear  like  Eurydice.  We  do  not  propose 
that  any  such  result  shall  occur.  We  propose  that  the  Demo 
cratic  party  shall  be  the  Orpheus  of  this  era,  and  that  we  shall 
imitate  his  example  by  employing  the  harmonious  measures 
which  we  have  the  power  to  exert  so  as  to  move  every  stone 
of  our  fabric  back  into  its  own  position.  .  .  . 2 

These  men  were  not  disloyal.  They  simply  imagined  that 
the  old  party  ties  exercised  as  potent  a  spell  over  the  South 
erners  as  over  themselves.  Van  Buren  and  Brady  were 
disillusioned  in  the  following  year. 

Immediately  after  the  Union  State  Convention,  an  Argus 
editorial  referring  to  Wadsworth  said :  "  We  mistake  the 
temper  of  the  people  of  this  State,  if  they  will  not  eagerly 
seize  the  first  opportunity  to  punish  one  of  the  assassins  of 
McClellan."  3  The  Buffalo  Courier  declared  that  the  issue 
was  fairly  presented  by  the  nomination  of  Wadsworth,  an 
"  abolitionist  and  special  calumniator  of  McClellan."  4  John 
Van  Buren  was  particularly  severe  in  his  criticism  of 

1  Herald,  Oct.  23. 

2  Herald,  Oct.  28.     Same  idea  expressed  less  poetically  by  O'Gorman 
(Herald,  Oct.  9),  and  by  Wood  (Tribune,  Oct.  25). 

3  Argus,  Sept.  26;  similar  editorials,  Sept.  29,  30,  Oct.  15,  16,  22,  28, 
Nov.  4. 

*  Quoted  by  the  Argus,  Sept.  27. 


246       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [446 

Wadsworth  as  the  enemy  of  McClellan.  He  and  other 
Democrats  persistently  reiterated  the  charge,  asserted  that 
Wadsworth  had  been  guilty  of  gross  insubordination  to 
his  commander,  and  harped  on  the  idea  of  rank  injustice 
to  a  military  hero  because  of  the  latter's  Democratic 
views  and  connections.  Van  Buren  denounced  Wads- 
worth  as  a  militia  major  who  had  never  been  on  the 
battle-field  except  once  as  an  aid-de-camp.  "  He  is  an 
qpen,  notorious,  bitter  enemy  of  George  B.  McClellan 
.  .  .  Wadsworth  is  his  [McClellan's]  open,  malignant, 
bitter  persecutor,  ...  It  is  our  purpose  to  stand  by  Mr. 
Lincoln  so  far  as  he  will  let  us,  and  to  stand  by  General 
McClellan  whether  he  will  let  us  or  not."  *  Brady  said 
that  Fremont  was  the  "  darling  of  a  certain  portion  of  the 
Republican  party,  at  the  same  time  that  in  the  most  dastardly 
and  assassin-like  manner  they  sought  to  injure  that  gallant 
young  man  McClellan."  2  Haskin  affirmed  that  "  when 
ever  a  Democratic  general  wins  a  victory,  they  [the  admin 
istration]  are  afraid  he  will  get  up  further  on  the  ladder 
of  fame  and  they  pull  him  down,"  and  he  declared  that  to 
his  certain  knowledge,  Wadsworth  had  taken  every  occasion 
to  detract  from  the  merit  of  McClellan.3  The  Unionists 
apparently  felt  this  charge,  for  they  found  it  advisable  dur 
ing  the  course  of  the  campaign  to  deny  that  their  candidate 
was  unfriendly  to  McClellan  and  to  aver  that  Wadsworth 
had  simply  been  anxious  for  the  Union  army  to  make  a  for 
ward  movement  during  the  preceding  winter  when  Mc 
Clellan  persisted  in  remaining  inactive.4 
1  Herald,  Oct.  14.  *  Herald,  Oct.  28.  3  Herald,  Oct.  31- 

4E.  g.  H.  B.  Stanton  at  Brooklyn  (Tribune,  Oct.  8);  W.  C.  Noyes 
at  New  York  City  (Tribune,  Nov.  4)  ;  letter  of  Gen.  Benjamin  Welch 
(Tribune,  Oct.  25)  ;  Tribune,  Nov.  i,  referring  to  the  letter  of  United 
States  Senator  Harris  on  the  subject,  published  in  the  Albany 
Statesman;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct.  6;  denial  of  a  similar 
charge  by  the  Times,  Oct.  21,  25,  and  by  the  Evening  Post,  Oct.  21. 


447]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  247 

Of  course,  the  Democrats  made  much  of  standing  for  the 
constitution  and  of  representing  the  great  conservative 
masses.  Then,  too,  something,  though  compared  to  the 
following  years  not  much,  was  said  against  heavy  taxes,  de 
preciated  currency,  and  the  alleged  failure  of  Chase's  finan 
cial  policy.1 

Wadsworth,  being  military  governor  of  Washington, 
made  but  two  speeches  in  New  York  during  the  campaign. 
Just  before  the  election,  he  came  to  New  York  City,  and 
addressed  two  large  meetings  at  Cooper  Institute,  the  latter 
being  a  gathering  of  German  citizens.  Weed  is  said  to  have 
urged  Wadsworth  to  avoid  the  slavery  question,  but  Wads- 
worth  disregarded  the  advice.  This,  according  to  Weed, 
lost  him  the  election.2  Seymour,  accompanied  by  John  Van 
Buren,  was  very  active,  touring  the  State  from  one  end  to 
the  other.  They  were  the  most  prominent  speakers  on  the 
Democratic  side  during  the  contest.  Others  of  note  were 
Richard  O'Gorman,  James  T.  Brady,  John  B.  Haskin, 
Amasa  J.  Parker,  and  Fernando  Wood.  On  the  Repub 
lican-Unionist  side,  there  was  an  imposing  array,  including 
George  William  Curtis,  Horace  Greeley,  General  Cochrane, 
William  Allen  Butler,  H.  B.  Stanton,  Tremain,  Noyes, 
Dickinson,  Raymond,  Alvord,  and  Field.  A  feature  of  the 
Republican-Unionist  meetings  was  the  speeches  made  by 
Southern  refugees,  ex-slaveholders  but  Union  men.  Most 
conspicuous  of  these  was  A.  J.  Hamilton,  of  Texas,  later 
provisional  governor  of  that  commonwealth. 

Even  the  choice  of  state  senators  and  assemblymen  had  a 
national  significance  in  1862,  because  an  anti-administration 

1  E.  g.  Argus,  Oct.  17,  18,  22,  27;  Seymour  at  Brooklyn  (Herald,  Oct. 
23)  ;  Haskin  at  Tarrytown  (Herald,  Oct.  31)  ;  William  D.  Murphy  at 
Schenectady  (Argus,  Nov.  i)  ;  Herald,  Oct.  26. 

2  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  425. 


248       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [448 

legislature  might  refuse  to  support  war  measures  and  because 
a  United  States  senator  was  to  be  elected  in  the  ensuing 
year.  But  second  in  importance  to  the  gubernatorial  con 
test  only  were  the  congressional  elections.  The  Tribune 
advocated  the  nomination  of  a  War  Democrat  in  every  dis 
trict  which  had  given  an  anti-Lincoln  majority  in  i860.1 
This  plan  was  largely  carried  out,  particularly  in  the  Demo 
cratic  strongholds  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State.  Thus, 
in  New  York  City  the  Republicans  supported  War  Demo 
crats  for  member  of  Congress  in  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  ninth 
districts.2  In  the  eighth,  the  Union  nomination  was  offered 
to  George  Bancroft,  who  was  a  War  Democrat;  but  he  de 
clined.3  In  the  tenth  district,  the  Republican-Unionists 
named  Edward  Haight,  who  had  been  elected  as  a  Democrat 
in  1860,  but  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war  had  supported 
the  administration.4  Through  a  deal  between  Tammany 
and  Mozart,  those  organizations  made  a  peaceful  division 
of  the  congressional  and  legislative  nominations  on  the 
Democratic  ticket  in  the  metropolis.5  Accordingly,  one 
found  there  an  interesting  trio  of  congressional  can 
didates:  the  two  Woods  and  James  Brooks.  The  battle 
was  waged  vigorously  against  them  because  of  their  well 
known  Copperhead  views.6 

That  the  campaign  was  an  acrimonious  one  has  already 
been  mentioned.  The  excitement  reached  a  climax  in  connec 
tion  with  the  proposed  draft.  During  the  enrolment,  a  great 
manv — 17,000  in  New  York  City  alone.7 — had  claimed 
exemption  on  the  ground  of  being  aliens.  Some  of  these 
doubtless  had  voted  in  previous  years.  It  was  made  known, 

1  Tribune,  Oct.  2.  2  Tribune,  Nov.  3. 

5  Tribune,  Oct.  21.  4  Ibid. 

6  Herald,  Oct.  7.  6  E.  g.  Tribune,  Nov.  4. 

7  Tribune,  Nov.  4. 


449]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  249 

shortly  before  the  election,  that  in  New  York  City  watchers 
of  Police  Superintendent  Kennedy  provided  with  lists  of  the 
exempted  aliens  would  be  at  the  polls,  ready  to  arrest  on  a 
charge  of  perjury  or  illegal  voting  any  such  persons  who 
should  attempt  to  cast  a  ballot.1  Tammany  and  Mozart 
probably  lost  many  votes.2  The  Seymour  papers  set  up  a. 
howl  about  intimidation,  and  a  handbill  signed  by  promi 
nent  local  politicians  denounced  these  very  proper  measures.3 
Nevertheless,  the  election  passed  off  quietly. 

The  result  was  the  choice  of  the  entire  Democratic  state 
ticket  by  about  10,700  majority.4  The  congressional  dele 
gation  and  the  legislature  showed  large  Democratic  gains. 
Fernando  Wood,  Benjamin  Wood,  and  James  Brooks  were 
all  elected.  In  the  face  of  the  adverse  majority  of  107,000 
in  the  previous  year,  the  Democratic  victory  of  1862  might 
seem  like  a  revolution  in  the  sentiment  of  the  people,  and 
was  so  interpreted  by  the  victors.  They  pronounced  it  a 
sweeping  condemnation  of  the  administration's  anti-slavery 
policy.  Such  an  explanation,  however,  was  probably  in 
correct.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Union  Democratic 
vote  became  disaffected  because  of  emancipation.  Union 
Democrats  in  the  Legislature,  in  the  state  convention,  and 
on  the  platform  appeared  little  if  any  behind  the  Republicans 
in  accepting  Lincoln's  proclamation,  at  least  as  a  justifiable 
war  measure.  While  Weed  doubted  the  expediency  of  the 
President's  action,  his  followers  did  not  endorse  his  view; 

1  Tribune,  Oct.  31,  Nov.  4. 

2  The  Tribune  (Nov.  5)   estimated  this  loss  at  "several  thousand;" 
the  New  York  Express,  which  supported  Seymour,  declared  that  the 
"Democratic  majority  in  this   city  is  5,000  less  than  it  would   have 
been  if  the  Metropolitan  Police  were  a  real  Police,  and  not  a  mere 
Republican  Club"  (quoted  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Nov.  7). 

8  Tribune,  Nov.  4. 

4  Albany  Evening  Journal  Almanac  for  1863. 


250       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [450 

and  it  does  not  appear  from  the  speeches  at  campaign  meet 
ings,  from  the  resolutions  of  such  gatherings,  from  the  pro 
ceedings  of  the  state  convention,  or  from  the  press  edi 
torials  that  the  Republicans  of  New  York  were  at  all  divided 
on  this  question.  Many  in  the  convention  favored  Dix's 
nomination,  not  however  because  they  were  opposed  to  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation,  but  simply,  as  Greeley  said  on 
the  day  following,  "because  they  believed  they  could  thus  dis 
arm  the  partisan  prejudices  of  thousands,"  or  else,  as  we 
may  add,  because  of  dislike  of  Greeley  himself  and  of  his 
faction. 

Weed  was  charged  with  treachery  to  the  ticket.  Just 
before  the  election,  he  publicly  denied  this  accusation  in 
a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  New  York  Commercial  Ad 
vertiser.  He  said : 

The  "  friends  of  Governor  Seward,"  generally,  are  cordially 
supporting  the  Union  State  ticket.  .  .  .  While  it  is  true  that  I 
urged  upon  the  Union  State  Convention  the  nomination  of 
General  Dix,  I  have,  from  the  moment  General  Wadsworth 
was  nominated,  given  him  and  our  whole  State  ticket  my  steady 
and  earnest  support1 

Weed  tells  in  his  autobiography  that,  soon  after  the  election, 
he  retired  from  the  editorship  of  the  Evening  Journal  and 
went  to  his  old  home,  Rochester,  intending  to  purchase  a 
farm  on  the  Genesee  River  on  which  to  pass  the  remainder 
of  his  life.  "  My  arrival  in  Rochester,"  he  wrote, 

was  announced  in  the  Republican  journal  of  which  I  had  been 
the  first  editor,  in  a  paragraph  charging  me  with  having  treach 
erously  defeated  the  election  of  General  Wadsworth,  ...  A 

1  Printed  in  the  Tribune.  Nov.  4. 


451]  THE  TRIUMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  251 

welcome  so  different  from  that  which  I  had  anticipated  affected 
me  so  profoundly  that  a  plan  of  life  which  I  had  long  fondly 
looked  forward  to  was  abandoned.1 

The  truth  of  the  matter  will  probably  never  be  known,  but 
that  Weed's  disaffected  followers  might  have  influenced  the 
result  is  not  unlikely.  They  had  been  beaten  too  thoroughly 
in  the  state  convention. 

But  this  betrayal,  if  indeed  it  occurred,  is  not  sufficient  to 
account  for  so  great  a  reversal.  James  Ford  Rhodes,  speak 
ing  of  the  state  elections  of  1862  in  general,  says  that  the 
results  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  lack  of  success  in  prosecut 
ing  the  war.  This  is  true  to  a  great  degree  of  New  York. 
The  danger  was  realized  before  the  election.  Bryant  wrote 
to  Lincoln  that  Seymour  would  be  successful  if  the  army 
was  kept  idle,  while  a  victory  or  two  would  carry  Wadsworth 
to  triumph.2  On  October  27th  the  Tribune  said:  "Do 
you  know  that  if  General  McClellan  had  crushed  the  Rebel 
army  ...  at  Antietam  and  General  Buell  had  bagged  that 
of  the  West  at  Perryville  .  .  .  Seymour  would  have  stood 
no  chance  of  an  election?"  Later,  the  Tribune  enumer 
ated  as  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  Unionist  defeat,  "gen 
eral  dissatisfaction  with  the  slow  progress  or  no  progress  of 
our  Armies,  and  a  wide-spread  feeling  that,  through  the  in- 

1  Weed's  Autobiography,  pp.  360-1.     The  Tribune  immediately  after 
the  ejection  said :  "  If  many  of  his  [Weed's]  most  intimate  and  devoted 
friends   have   not  by  positive   action  or   determined    inaction   contrib 
uted  to  verify  his  predictions,  then  they  are  grossly  belied." — Tribune, 
Nov.    7.    Daniel    S.    Dickinson    wrote   to    Colonel    Paine,    January    7, 
1863 :  "  I  was  so  shocked  and  humiliated  by  the  perfidy  which  the  re 
sult  of  the  election  showed  existed  in  the  Union  organization,  betray 
ing  it  to  death,  that  I  did  not  feel  like  saying  anything  to  any  one" 
(Dickinson's  Speeches  and  Correspondence,  \\,  p.  599).     Both  of  these, 
however,  are  prejudiced  witnesses. 

2  Godwin's  Bryant,  ii,  p.  176. 


252       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [452 

capacity  of  our  military  leaders,  the  blood  and  treasure  of 
the  loyal  Millions  are  being  sacrificed  in  vain."  *  And  again, 
it  estimated  that  20,000  Republicans  had  voted  the  Demo 
cratic  ticket  because  they  were  "  sick  and  discouraged  at  the 
mismanagement  and  inefficiency,  through  imbecility  or 
treachery,  of  the  conduct  of  the  war."  2  The  Evening  Post 
gave  as  the  principal  cause  of  the  defeat  "  the  depression, 
amounting  almost  to  despair,  which  the  inactive  and  ex 
pectant  policy  of  the  Administration  has  produced  .  .  . 
[The  opposition's]  most  powerful  assistant  has  been  the 
discouragement  and  apathy  diffused  everywhere  by  our 
military  failure."  3 

What  effect  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  absence  of  so  many 
men  in  the  army?  In  1862,  100,000  citizens  of  New  York 
in  the  army  were  on  that  account  temporarily  disfranchised.4 
Mr.  Rhodes,  after  mentioning  that  the  Republicans  generally 
laid  to  this  cause  primarily  the  adverse  results  throughout 
the  Central  states  in  1862,  rejects  the  explanation.  So  far  as 
New  York  is  concerned,  however,  there  is  some  ground  for 
believing  that  Wadsworth  would  have  carried  the  State  had 
it  not  been  for  the  volunteers  losing  their  votes.  Wads- 
worth  received  about  66,000  less  than  Lincoln ;  Seymour  ob 
tained  within  less  than  6,000  of  the  number  cast  for  the 
fusion  electoral  ticket  of  1860.  Either  there  were  more 
New  York  Republicans  than  Democrats  in  the  federal 
military  service  or  if  the  strength  of  both  parties  was  equally 
decreased  through  this  cause,  the  Democrats  must  have  been 
largely  compensated  for  such  loss  by  defections  from  the 
Republicans.  To  adopt  the  latter  supposition  is  to  ignore 
these  considerations:  (i)  recruiting  in  the  Democratic 
strongholds  of  New  York  City  and  Brooklyn  was  so  slack 

1  Tribune,  Nov.  5.  *  Tribune,  Nov.  6. 

3  New  York  Evening  Post,  Nov.  5.        4  Tribune,  Dec.  5- 


453]  THE  TRWMPH  OF  THE  OPPOSITION  253 

that  the  draft  was  repeatedly  threatened,1  while  many  of  the 
strong  Republican  counties  easily  raised  their  quotas;2  (2) 
the  Democrats  later  interposed  obstacles  in  the  way  of  grant 
ing  to  soldiers  the  right  to  vote;  (3)  the  volunteer  vote  in 
other  states  where  the  figures  were  kept  separate  from  the  or 
dinary  vote  uniformly  supported  the  administration.  Other 
factors  which  influenced  the  result  were  the  harmony  in  the 
ranks  of  the  Democrats  of  both  New  York  City  and  Brook 
lyn,8  the  October  elections  in  other  states,  Seymour's  veto 
of  a  prohibition  bill  during  his  first  administration  which 
gained  for  him  the  endorsement  of  a  state  convention  of 
liquor  dealers,4  and  the  fear  of  the  draft,  which  was  re- 

1  The  Herald  (Aug.  2),  discussing  the  prospect  of  a  draft,  said, 
"  There  is  no  mincing  the  matter  that  the  city  is  not  doing  its  whole 
duty  in  furnishing  volunteers."  Burt's  Memoirs  of  the  Military 
History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  p.  133,  says  of  the  third  levy  of 
troops,  i.  e.  from  April,  1862  to  December,  1862:  "A  remarkable  fea 
ture  of  this  levy  was  the  slackness  of  recruiting  in  the  great  cities 
included  in  the  first  seven  districts  (New  York,  Kings,  Queens,  Suf 
folk,  and  Richmond  counties).  Of  the  39,787  enlisted  men  pent  to 
the  field  before  October  ist,  the  proper  quota  of  these  counties  would 
be  12,547,  but  they  furnished  only  3,043  men."  See  on  the  same  sub 
ject  letter  of  August  Belmont  to  Weed,  dated  July  20,  1862,  in 
Belmont's  Letters,  p.  80. 

*  See  table  in  the  Tribune,  Sept.  30,  quoted  from  the  New  York 
Sunday  Mercury,  showing  that  of  the  fifteen  counties  which  had  al 
ready  raised  their  quotas,  all  but  two  had  given  Lincoln  majorities 
in  1860,  many  of  them  very  large  ones.  "  Besides  these,"  the  Tribune 
continued,  "  nearly  all  the  Republican  strongholds  have  so  nearly  com 
pleted  their  quotas,  that  they  are  morally  certain  to  do  so  without 
a  draft." 

3  After    numerous    conferences,    committees    from    Tammany    and 
Mozart  agreed  on  a  division  of  local  nominations,   though  the  pro 
jected    consolidation    of    the    two    general    committees    fell    through 
(Tribune,  Oct.  3,  Dec.  16,  17;  Herald,  Oct.  7).     In  Brooklyn,  the  two 
Democratic  organizations  joined  hands  on  the  basis  of  a  division  of 
local  spoils  (Tribune,  Oct.  i). 

4  Herald,  Oct.  i. 


254       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [454 

peatedly  rumored  and  even  officially  announced  only  to  be 
postponed,  thus  keeping  up  the  excitement. 

The  effects  of  the  Democratic  triumph  in  New  York 
State  were  far-reaching.  It  was  the  most  important  of 
those  victories  which  made  the  opposition  party  throughout 
the  North  far  stronger,  bolder,  and  more  virulent.  It 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  most  important  source  of  men  and 
money  which  were  essential  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war, 
an  executive  who  was  out  of  sympathy  with  the  national 
administration.  It  temporarily  at  least  restored  the  Weed 
faction  to  the  control  of  the  party,  and  proved  a  corres 
pondingly  great  set-back  both  for  Greeley  and  for  the  wing 
which  he  tried  to  lead. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE 

WHEN  Horatio  Seymour  for  the  second  time  became  Gov 
ernor  of  New  York,  he  was  the  most  conspicuous  Demo 
cratic  leader  in  the  North.  For  some  years  he  had  been  a 
figure  of  national  importance  in  the  councils  of  his  party. 
His  election  was  the  chief  triumph  in  a  series  of  victories 
achieved  by  the  Democracy  in  the  central  states  in  1862. 
He  and  Parker  of  New  Jersey  were  the  only  Democratic 
governors  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  and  the  Ohio; 
but  as  New  York  was  far  more  important  than  New  Jersey 
politically  and  materially,  so  did  Seymour  bulk  larger  than 
Parker  in  the  public  eye.  A  contemporary  and  one  opposed 
to  Seymour  in  politics  described  him  as  "  a  gentleman  of 
commanding  talents,  high  culture,  ...  of  bland  and  win 
ning  manners,  admired  social  and  domestic  life."  1  Indeed 
his  private  virtues  were  universally  admitted;  and  his  pa 
triotism,  however  impugned  by  his  opponents,  is  to-day  ac 
knowledged  by  all.  But  it  was  a  patriotism  blinded  by 
strong  partisan  sympathies  and  mental  habits.  Occupying  a 
chair  which  before  and  after  has  served  as  a  stepping-stone 
to  the  presidency,  Seymour's  inaugural  address  and  his  mes 
sage  to  the  Legislature  were  naturally  awaited  with  interest, 
not  only  in  New  York  but  also  without.2  Would  he  render 

1  Letter  of  Gerrit  Smith,  printed  in  the  Tribune,  Jan.  23,  1863. 

2  Some  evidence  of  this  interest  in  the  message  on  the  part  of  those 
outside  New  York  is  afforded  by  the  commendatory  newspaper  extracts 

455]  255 


256       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [456 

a  hearty  support  to  the  war  ?  Would  he  bring  the  State  into 
conflict  with  the  national  administration?  What  extreme 
men  in  his  party  hoped  for  was  seen  in  the  utterances  of 
Fernando  Wood  and  James  Brooks  shortly  after  the  elec 
tion.  Brooks,  who  about  this  time  was  advocating  peace 
resolutions,1  asserted  that  New  York  "  would  soon  have  a 
governor  who  would  call  out,  if  necessary,  the  whole  militia 
of  our  State  as  a  posse  to  enforce  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus."  2  Said  Wood:  "  I  do  not  understand  the  character 
and  the  calibre  of  the  Governor  elect,  if  he  is  not  the  man 
to  stand  erect  on  the  majesty  of  a  sovereign  power,  and 
stand  up  for  the  rights  of  his  State  against  any  federal 
usurpation."  3 

Lincoln  appreciated  how  important  it  was  that  the  Em 
pire  State  should  sustain  the  federal  authorities  in  the 
same  hearty  and  zealous  manner  that  Governor  Morgan 
did,  and  accordingly  wrote  in  March,  1863,  a  kindly  letter 
to  Seymour,  expressing  a  desire  for  a  good  understand 
ing  with  the  Governor  and  inviting  a  frank  correspon 
dence.  But  Seymour's  answer,  long  delayed,  was  not  such 
as  to  result  in  that  strong  patriotic  bond  of  cooperation  which 
Lincoln  aimed  at.  The  Governor  said  he  would  give  to 
those  charged  with  the  national  administration  a  "  just  and 
generous  support  "  —with  a  proviso:  "  in  all  measures  they 

on  the  message,  quoted  in  the  Albany  Argus.  These  included  the 
Detroit  Free  Press  (Argus,  Jan.  15)  ;  Boston  Post,  Boston  Courier, 
(Argus,  Jan.  14)  ;  Providence  Daily  Post  (Argus,  Jan.  13)  ;  Milwau 
kee  News,  Pittsfield  Sun,  Hartford  Times,  Trenton  American  (Argus, 
Jan.  20).  The  Indiana  House  adopted  resolutions  of  thanks  and  en 
dorsement  (Argus,  Jan.  29).  The  Democrats  of  Chicago  also  en 
dorsed  the  message  (Argus,  Jan.  28). 

1  Herald,  Jan.  3. 

2  Speech    of    Brooks    before    the    Democratic    Union    Association, 
Herald,  Nov.  n,  1862. 

3  Speech  of  Wood,  ibid. 


457]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        257 

may  adopt  within  the  scope  of  their  constitutional  powers." 
Thus  ended  the  well-intentioned  effort  of  Lincoln  to  bring 
Seymour  into  harmony  with  those  who  must  carry  on  the 
war.1  Seymour,  however,  was  bound  by  his  campaign 
pledges  to  support  the  war ;  but  he  was  extremely  hostile  to 
the  measures  of  the  government  and  particularly  to  eman 
cipation.  His  was  the  difficult  task  of  guiding  an  opposi 
tion  without  falling  into  the  errors  of  the  extremists  of  his 
party.  Even  if  he  had  been  inclined  to  oppose  the  admin 
istration  openly,  he  would  have  found  an  obstacle  in  the 
fact  that  the  Republican-Unionists  still  possessed  nearly  all 
of  the  principal  state  offices;  the  state  senate  had  a  large 
majority  of  the  same  party;  and  the  lower  house,  when  it 
was  finally  organized,  was  likewise  in  the  control  of 
Seymour's  opponents.  The  Governor  recognized  that  his 
role  was  not  an  easy  one.  "  Now  that  you  and  others  have 
got  me  into  this  scrape,"  he  wrote  to  Tilden,  a  few  days  after 
the  election,  "  I  wish  you  would  tell  me  what  to  do.  Give 
me  your  suggestions.  I  shall  need  all  the  help  my  friends 
can  furnish."  2 

The  only  influence  which  Seymour,  while  in  opposition, 
could  exert  on  the  government  at  Washington  was  the  indi 
rect  one  of  hostile  criticism ;  and  he  himself,  in  his  brief  in 
augural,  asserted  his  practical  powerlessness  over  the  course 
of  national  affairs.  Nevertheless,  he  took  a  firm  stand  on 
this  occasion  in  behalf  of  state  rights.  He  had  sworn,  he 
said,  to  support  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  with 
all  its  grants,  restrictions,  and  guarantees,  and  he  had  also 
sworn  to  support  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York ; 
and  he  would  uphold  both.  "  The  first  law  I  find  recorded 

1  Nicolay   and   Hay's    Life    of   Lincoln,    vii,    pp.    10-11,    quoting    MS. 
letters. 

2  Tilden's  Letters,  i,  p.  168. 


258      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [458 

for  my  observance,"  he  said,  "  is  that  which  declares  that 
1  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Governor  to  maintain  and  defend 
the  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  of  the  State.'  The  most 
marked  injunction  of  the  constitution  to  the  Executive  is 
that  he  '  shall  take  care  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  exe 
cuted.'  "  *  Such  language  must  have  seemed  promising  to 
the  Woods  and  the  Brookses  of  the  party. 

This  idea  of  the  equal  sacredness  of  the  national  and  the 
state  constitutions  introduced  the  Governor's  message. 
Little  more  than  a  quarter  of  the  document  was  devoted  to 
affairs  relating  to  this  State.2  The  rest  formed  a  complete 
manifesto  for  the  Democratic  party.  If  the  Governor  recog 
nized  that  he  could  have  but  little  direct  influence  on  the 
policy  pursued  at  Washington,  he  nevertheless  thought  his 
message  a  fitting  vehicle  to  convey  his  ideas  in  full  even  upon 
subjects  which  did  not  directly  touch  New  York.  Of  that 
part  of  the  message  dealing  with  the  State,  the  most  in 
teresting  passage,  in  view  of  subsequent  events,  was  that  re 
lating  to  the  draft.  The  Governor  stated  that  New  York 
still  owed  almost  31,000  men  to  fill  its  quota,  unless  the 
national  authorities  would  give  the  State  credit  for  the 
excess  sent  before  July,  1862.  He  urged  that  the  Legis 
lature  give  its  "  immediate  attention  to  the  inequality  and 
injustice  of  the  laws  under  which  it  is  proposed  to  draft 
soldiers."  He  objected  especially  to  the  exemption  of  offi 
cials  and  other  classes  who  were  "  usually  in  a  better  condi 
tion  to  give  an  equivalent  than  the  mass  of  those  upon  whom 
these  liabilities  now  fall."  What  the  Legislature  might  do 
to  avert  the  measure  providing  for  a  conscription,  then  under 
consideration  by  Congress,  the  Governor  did  not  say. 

1  Argus,  Jan.  3. 

2  More   than   five-sixths  of   Governor   Morgan's  annual  message  of 
1861  was  devoted  to  New  York  State  affairs,  and  a  still  greater  pro 
portion  of  his  annual  message  of  1862. 


459]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        259 

Turning  to  national  affairs,  he  declared  that  there  "  must 
be  no  attempt  to  put  down  the  full  expression  of  public 
opinion."  Drawing  a  rather  fine  distinction,  he  asserted 
that  slavery  was  merely  the  subject  of  the  war,  while  the 
causes  were  a  prevailing  disregard  of  legal  and  constitu 
tional  obligations  and  local  prejudices.  Seymour's  criti 
cism  on  the  extravagance  and  corruption  of  the  Washington 
government  was  rather  moderate;  for,  while  insisting  upon 
the  necessity  of  economy  and  integrity,  he  admitted  the  ex 
istence  of  the  opportunities  which  war  gives  to  unprincipled 
men  as  well  as  the  difficulties  of  checking  their  schemes, 
and  he  acknowledged  that  such  difficulties  should  shield  the 
administration  from  harsh  judgment.  On  this  subject,  the 
tone  of  the  Governor  was  not  incompatible  with  true  pa 
triotism.  But  he  was  more  partisan  in  speaking  of  the 
encroachments  of  the  departments  of  the  government  upon 
each  other  and  upon  the  states.  He  said : 

While  the  War  Department  sets  aside  the  authority  of  the 
Judiciary  and  overrides  the  laws  of  States,  the  Governors  of 
States  meet  to  shape  the  policy  of  the  General  Government, 
the  National  Legislature  appoints  committees  to  interfere  with 
the  military  conduct  of  the  war,  and  Senators  combine  to  dic 
tate  the  Executive  choice  of  constitutional  advisers.  The  nat 
ural  results  of  meddling  and  intrigue  have  followed  ...  the 
heroic  valor  of  our  soldiers  and  the  skill  of  our  generals  are 
thwarted  and  paralyzed. 

The  message  then  condemned  arbitrary  arrests  and  as 
saults  on  the  freedom  of  the  press.  It  read : 

The  suppression  of  journals  and  the  imprisonment  of  persons 
have  been  glaringly  partisan,  allowing  to  some  the  utmost 
licentiousness  of  criticism,  and  punishing  others  for  a  fair  ex 
ercise  of  the  right  of  discussion.  Conscious  of  these  gross 


26o      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [460 

abuses,  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  shield  the  violators  of  law 
and  suppress  enquiry  into  their  motives  and  conduct. 

The  Governor  denied  that  the  rebellion  could  suspend  a 
single  right  of  the  citizens  of  loyal  states.  Then  he  boldly 
asserted : 

It  is  a  high  crime  to  abduct  a  citizen  of  this  State.  It  is  made 
my  duty  by  the  Constitution  to  see  that  the  laws  are  enforced. 
I  shall  investigate  every  alleged  violation  of  our  statutes,  and 
see  that  offenders  are  brought  to  justice.  Sheriffs  and  district 
attorneys  are  admonished  that  it  is  their  duty  to  take  care  that 
no  person  within  their  respective  counties  is  imprisoned,  or 
carried  by  force  beyond  their  limits,  without  due  process  or 
legal  authority. 

Then  followed  a  lengthy  historical  and  constitutional  essay 
on  the  nature  of  martial  law  and  the  doctrine  that  the  presi 
dent  could  declare  it  within  peaceful  states,  concluding  with 
a  severe  condemnation  of  that  idea. 

Discussing  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  the  Gov 
ernor  said  that  its  sole  effect  was  to  confiscate  the  slaves 
of  those  not  in  rebellion.  He  observed  that  it  was  "  an 
extraordinary  deduction  from  the  alleged  war  power, 
that  the  forfeiture  of  the  right  of  loyal  citizens  ...  is 
calculated  to  advance  the  success  of  the  war,  .  .  .  and 
restore  the  Union."  The  consequence  of  forcible  emancipa 
tion  would  be  to  convert  the  government  into  a  military  des 
potism.  Then  Seymour  rebuked  the  administration  for  not 
holding  to  the  original  declared  purpose  of  the  war,  and  the 
leaders  of  the  Republican  party  for  rejecting  compromise 
in  1 86 1  and  for  attempting  to  "  govern  and  control  an 
agitated  arid  convulsed  country  strictly  by  the  opinions  and 
sentiments  of  a  minority."  The  Union  must  be  restored  as 
it  was,  and  by  accompanying  force  with  conciliation.  "  Let 


461]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        26l 

no  one  think/'  said  Seymour,  "  that  the  people  who  have 
refused  to  yield  this  Union  to  rebellion  at  the  South  will 
permit  its  restoration  to  be  prevented  by  fanaticism  at  the 
North."  However,  the  conclusion  of  the  message  was  more 
reassuring  to  those  who  believed  in  supporting  the  national 
authorities  in  their  tremendous  burden.  "  At  this  moment," 
the  message  read,  "  the  fortunes  of  our  country  are  influ 
enced  by  the  results  of  battles.  Our  armies  in  the  field 
must  be  supported;  all  constitutional  demands  of  our  Gen 
eral  Government  must  be  promptly  responded  to.  ... 
Under  no  circumstances  can  the  division  of  the  Union  be 
conceded."  * 

The  Tribune  spoke  of  the  message  as  exhibiting  "  the 
dexterous  dishonesty,  the  impudent  though  adroit  sophistry 
of  the  demagogue."  2  But  Seymour  was  neither  dishonest 
nor  a  demagogue,  even  though  he  may  have  been  an  adroit 
and  dexterous  politician.  Though  the  manifesto  seemed  to 
portend  a  collision  with  the  government  at  Washington  and 
thus  was  encouraging  to  certain  disloyal  elements  of  the 
party,  yet  the  fact  that  Seymour  came  out  in  favor  of  sus 
taining  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  even  though  he  did  not 
do  it  in  a  very  zealous  manner,  was  creditable  to  him.  His 
message  embodied  the  views  of  a  man  who  considered  aboli 
tionist  agitators  equally  guilty  with  Southern  extremists  in 
bringing  on  the  war,  of  a  man  who  disliked  New  England 
and  sympathized  with  the  South  up  to  the  point  of  secession, 
but  who  was  firm  for  the  Union.  Partisanship  was  too 
strong  in  Seymour  to  enable  him  to  rise  wholly  above  it, 
but  no  more  could  patriotism  be  entirely  subdued  in  him. 

Even  before  the  message  was  sent  to  the  Legislature,  in 
fact  as  his  very  first  official  act  after  being  sworn  in,  Sey- 

1  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  445-484. 
3  Tribune,  Jan.  8. 


262      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [462 

mour  had  taken  a  step  calculated  to  show  that  his  oft-re 
peated  condemnation  of  arbitrary  arrests  was  not  mere  idle 
talk.  Since  1857  the  metropolitan  police  had  been  freed 
from  the  baneful  political  influences  which  had  formerly 
controlled  it.  It  had  rendered  to  the  citizens  an  efficient  pro 
tection  never  attained  under  the  regime  of  Fernando  Wood, 
and  from  1861  had  cooperated  with  the  national  authorities 
in  suppressing  all  disloyal  attempts  of  Southern  sympa 
thizers.  It  had  raised  five  regiments  of  infantry  and  several 
companies  of  cavalry,  and  within  little  more  than  a  year 
had  arrested  nearly  four  thousand  deserters.1  Now,  with 
unseemly  haste,  the  Commissioners  of  the  metropolitan 
police  were  notified  on  January  first  to  appear  for  trial  on 
the  afternoon  of  the  third.2  They  were  charged  with  per 
mitting  the  police  to  make  arbitrary  arrests  of  citizens  in 
violation  of  the  national  and  state  constitutions,  with  allow 
ing  the  prisons  to  be  used  for  illegal  incarceration  of  per 
sons  against  whom  no  charge  had  been  preferred  and  who 
were  guiltless  of  any  legal  offence,  with  merely  reprimand 
ing  instead  of  removing  Superintendent  Kennedy  for  the 
arbitrary  detention  of  a  Mrs.  Brinsmaid,  and  with  causing 
or  permitting  Kennedy  to  publish,  for  the  purpose  of  intimi 
dating  voters,  the  order  threatening  the  arrest  of  such  aliens 
as  offered  to  vote  at  the  election  of  1862  after  claiming  ex 
emption  from  the  draft.8 

Whether   acting   from   honest    indignation,    or   whether 
spurred  on  by  pressure   from  Democratic  politicians  who 

1  Tribune,  Jan.  6.     On  the  efficiency  of  the  metropolitan  police  since 
its  establishment  by  the  act  of   1857,   see  Governor  Morgan's  annual 
messages  of  1860  (Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  p.  181) 
and  1861   (Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  p.  282). 

2  Herald,  Jan.  2 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  3. 

3  The  charges  are  printed  in  full  in  the  Herald,  Jan.  3. 


463]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        263 

wished  to  secure  not  only  possession  of  desirable  positions 1 
but  also  control  of  the  machinery  which  they  had  long 
•coveted  for  party  purposes,  Seymour's  action  on  this  occa 
sion  produced  a  profound  stir  in  political  circles.  The 
Herald  declared  that  the  anticipated  removals  would  prob 
ably  be 

of  high  importance  to  this  State  and  to  the  whole  country.  It 
will  be  likely  to  inaugurate  a  new  era,  in  which  the  outraged 
constitution  will  be  vindicated,  .  .  .  Henceforth  we  expect  that 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  citizens  .  .  .  will  be  respected, 
and  that  the  laws  of  the  land  will  be  held  paramount  to  all 
arbitrary  edicts  issued  from  Washington.  .  .  . 2 

Horatio  Seymour,  however,  was  not  a  bold  enough  man.  A 
part  that  Fernando  Wood  might  well  have  essayed  simply 
brought  out  the  Governor's  weakness.  The  latter  cited  the 
Commissioners  to  appear  for  trial  in  the  county  of  Albany. 
But  when  they  failed  to  present  themselves  and  transmitted 
a  protest  that,  according  to  the  statute,  the  charges  ought 
to  be  sent  to  the  District  Attorney  of  New  York  County, 
who  should  examine  witnesses  before  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  and  certify  to  the  Governor  the  evidence  taken,3  Sey 
mour  yielded.4  And  so  the  matter  drifted  on  for  a  long 
time. 

1 "  Upwards  of  two  dozen  applicants  for  these  positions  were  early 
on  the  ground,  demanding  their  [i.  e.  the  Police  Commissioners'] 
immediate  removal  without  a  hearing  or  anything  else"  (Herald, 
Jan.  6).  "Long  before  Seymour  took  the  oath  of  office  he  was  im 
portuned  for  the  removal  of  the  Police  Commissioners"  (Herald, 
Jan.  7).  "It  appears  that  he  [Seymour]  had  yielded  to  a  tremendous 
pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  him  by  the  Fernando  Wood  Demo 
cracy"  (Tribune,  Jan.  6). 

2  Herald,  Jan.  3.  8  Herald,  Jan.  6 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  6. 

4  Tribune,  Jan.  6,  including  letter  of  Seymour  in  answer  to  the 
Commissioners'  protest. 


264      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [464 

When  the  Legislature  met,  it  was  a  question  which  party 
would  control  the  lower  house.  This  was  a  matter  of 
more  than  local  interest,  as  a  United  States  senator  was 
to  be  chosen  at  this  session.  The  supporters  of  the  na 
tional  administration  were  sure  of  a  majority  on  a  joint 
ballot,  provided  they  were  not  deserted  by  the  Union  Demo 
crats.  Yet  the  regular  Democrats,  if  possessed  of  the  or 
ganization  of  the  Assembly,  might  refuse  to  go  into  a  joint 
convention  and  thus  prevent  the  election  of  a  senator  dur 
ing  the  session  of  1863,  in  the  hope  that  they  might  have 
a  majority  on  joint  ballot  in  the  following  year.  The  same 
result  might  have  been  brought  about  by  merely  delaying 
the  organization  of  the  Assembly  until  after  the  day  fixed 
by  law  for  the  election  of  a  senator.1  The  House  was  com 
posed  of  sixty-three  Democrats,  eight  Union  Democrats, 
forty-six  Republicans,  twelve  Union  Republicans,  and  one 
member — Cutler  of  Albany — who  had  received  the  support 
of  both  parties,  but  who,  as  the  event  turned  out,  voted  with 
the  Democrats.2  In  the  Senate,  there  were  twenty-three 
Unionists  and  nine  Democrats.3 

1  In  order  to  proceed  to  an  election  in  such  a  case,  the  statute  relat 
ing  to  the  subject  would  have  necessitated  the  passage  of  special  acts. 
".  .  .  .  if  the  assembly  is  not  organized  ....  upon  the  3rd  of  Feb 
ruary,  the   force   of   the   statute  will  be   expended,   and   it  will  cease 
to  be  obligatory" — Argus,  Jan.  15;  confirmed  by  the  Albany  Evening 
Journal,  Jan.  2.     Such  special  acts  could  probably  have  been  blocked 
by  the  Democrats,   even  without  possessing  the  organization   of   the 
Assembly.     This  policy  of  delaying  the  organization  to  avert  the  send 
ing  of   an   "abolitionist"   at   least   to   the   United    States    Senate  was 
advocated  by  the  Argus  (Argus,  Jan.  15). 

2  Herald,  Dec.  17,  1862.     The  Tribune  claimed  that  Cutler  had  pre 
viously  been  known  as  a  Republican,  but  had  had  intimate  business 
relations   with    the    New    York    Central    Railroad    (the   inference,    of 
course,  being  that  because  of  these  connections,  Cutler  was  amenable  to 
Dean  Richmond's  influence)  ;  and  it  was  also  claimed  that  Cutler  was 
elected   in    what   had   been   hitherto    a    Republican    district    (Tribune, 


465]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        26$ 

When  the  House  assembled,  ex-Judge  Gilbert  Dean,  the 
Democratic  caucus  nominee  and  a  friend  of  Fernando  Wood, 
received  sixty-three  votes  for  speaker,  as  did  Lorenzo! 
Sherwood,  the  Union  nominee.4  Day  after  day,  the  re 
sult  was  a  tie.  This  showed  that  the  Union  Democrats 
held  fast  to  the  choice  of  the  Union  caucus,  a  fact  signifi 
cant  of  the  growth  of  a  Union  party,  and  also  indicative  of 
the  final  results  in  the  election  of  a  senator  should  a  joint 
session  be  entered  into.  For  seventy-eight  ballots,  the  pro 
ceedings  were,  on  the  whole,  calm  and  good-tempered,  the 
monotony  being  relieved  by  various  motions  partly  humor 
ous  and  partly  designed  to  kill  time.5 

But  now  began  one  of  the  most  exciting  and  disgraceful 
contests  in  the  legislative  annals  of  the  State.6  The  Union 
members  dropped  Sherwood,  and  after  a  vain  attempt  to 
get  for  Mr.  Depew  the  one  vote — Mr.  Cutler's — necessary 
to  elect,  they  took  as  their  candidate  a  Democrat,  Theophilus 
C.  Callicot  of  Kings  County.  It  was  agreed  that  in  return 
for  support  for  the  speakership,  Callicot  would  not  vote 
against  any  measure  to  sustain  the  administration  in  a  vigor 
ous  prosecution  of  the  war,  that  he  would  give  to  each  side 

Jan.  19,  29).  The  Argus,  on  the  other  hand,  asserted  that  Cutler  "re 
ceived  the  nomination  of  the  Democrats  which  was  concurred  in  by  a 
Republican  convention;  but  which  did  not  prevent  the  regular  pre 
sentation  of  a  Republican  stump  candidate  .  .  .  who  received  448 
votes"  (Argus,  Jan.  12).  Yet,  Mr.  Cutler  was  absent  from  the 
Democratic  caucus  when  a  candidate  for  the  speakership  was  named 
(Argus,  Jan.  7).  In  neither  caucus  was  there  any  factional  contest. 

3  Herald,  Jan.  5. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  6. 

5  Herald,  Jan.  8,  9,  10,  n,  14,  15,  16;  Argus,  Jan.  8,  9,  12,  15,  16. 

6  "  The  dead  calm  of  the  Assembly  Chamber  has  this  morning  been 
succeeded  by  a  genuine  and  furious  storm"  (Tribune,  Jan.  17).    "The 
monotony  of  the  contest  for  speaker  has  now  changed  to  intense  ex 
citement  "  (Herald,  Jan.  17). 


266       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [466 

an  equal  share  in  the  committees,  that  the  Unionists  should 
have  the  other  elected  officials  of  the  House,  and  the  Demo 
crats  the  appointed  ones.1  The  anger  of  the  Democrats 
when  Sherwood  and  Depew  at  the  session  of  January  i6th 
successively  withdrew  in  favor  of  Callicot  was  intense.  Led 
by  Mr.  Fields,  a  Tammany  orator  of  large  lung  capacity, 
who  later  at  the  downfall  of  Tweed  "  left  his  country  for  his 
country's  good  and  died  in  exile,"  2  the  Democrats  resorted 
to  filibustering  of  every  sort  to  prevent  a  vote.  The  worst 
passions  were  aroused.  Finally,  after  Fields  had  spoken  for 
about  five  hours,  the  Union  members  consented  to  an  ad 
journment  on  condition  that  a  ballot  without  debate  should 
be  taken  at  twelve  o'clock  on  the  next  day.3 

Nevertheless,  at  the  appointed  time,  Fields  and  his  fol 
lowers,  under  pretext  of  correcting  the  journal,  prevented 
any  ballot,4  and  a  scandalous  scene  ensued.  The  Clerk, 
having  no  power  to  enforce  the  customary  rules,  was  unable 
to  maintain  order.  The  galleries  were  filled  with  a  disor 
derly  crowd,  many  (it  was  said)  being  bullies  imported 
from  New  York  City  and  Brooklyn.5  These  spectators  ap- 

1  Herald,  Jan.  17;  letter  of  Callicot  to  Hon.  Martin  Kalbfleisch,  dated 
Jan.  17  (printed  in  the  Herald,  Jan.  20)  ;  Callicot's  speech  in  his  own 
defense    (Herald,   April  21).     Callicot   denied   making  any   agreement 
that  he  should  vote  for  any  particular  candidate  for  senator;  and  the 
majority  of  the  investigating  committee  reported  that  there  was  no 
evidence  to  show  such  a  bargain  (Callicot's  speech,  Herald,  April  21; 
report  of  the  majority  of  the  investigating  committee,   Herald,   April 
17). 

2  Autobiography  of  Andrew  D.  White,  i,  p.  104. 

3  Herald,  Jan.  17;  Tribune,  Jan.  17;  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp.  68, 
69,  70. 

4  Herald,  Jan.  18;  Argus,  Jan.  20;  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp.  70,  7i- 

5  Herald,   Jan.    18;    the    correspondent    described    the    spectators    as 
"one  of  the  hardest  looking  crowds  ever  gathered  together  in  Albany." 
The  Tribune  of  January  igth  spoke  of  the  crowd  as  being  "of  the 


467]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        267 

plauded  in  no  doubtful  manner  the  Democrats,  and  hissed 
and  yelled  at  Unionists.1  One  of  the  latter,  it  was  reported, 
was  struck  by  a  piece  of  decayed  fruit.2  Meanwhile,  the 
Democrats  denounced  Callicot  in  the  most  abusive  words.3 
One  said  that  if  Callicot  was  elected,  he  would  never  be 
allowed  to  take  the  chair;4  and  Fields  declared  that  if  Calli 
cot  was  seated  as  speaker,  it  would  be  amid  scenes  that  the 
members  would  regret  forever  5 — sentiments  that  delighted 
the  galleries.  The  effect  of  such  tactics  was  a  determination 
by  the  Unionists  in  caucus  to  adhere  firmly  to  Callicot.  The 
Democrats  in  his  constituency  held  a  meeting  which  cen- 

most  brutal  aspect  .  .  .  this  squalid  mass  of  ruffianism;  .  .  .  here  and 
there  could  be  seen  .  .  .  well  known  political  bullies  of  New  York 
and  Brooklyn,  the  heroes  who  had  led  many  a  desperate  primary 
meeting  struggle,  ..." 

1  Herald,  Jan.  18 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  19. 

2  Tribune,  Jan.  19. 

3  Herald,  Jan.  18;  Argus,  Jan.  20.    As  a  sample,  the  following,  part 
of  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Hughes  of  Kings,  is  given  as  reported  in  the 
Argus:  "If  Mr.  Callicot  is  elected  Speaker,  it  will  be  the  result  of  a 
political  coalition,  the  most  infernal  in  its  demoralizing  elements  that 
ever  disgraced  a  civilized  community.     Take  him — there  he  stands — 
polluted  with  foul  dishonor,  loathed  by  honest  men,  despised  by  his 
seducers,  left  alone  to  revel  in  the  spoils  of  his  infamy  and  dishonor. 
...  I  give  him  notice  that  it  would  be  better  for  him  that  he  was  not 
elected  Speaker — he  might  as  well  sit  on  the  crater  of  Mt.  Vesuvius 
this  winter  as  in  the  Speaker's  chair.  ...  I  here  call  on  the  brave 
men  of   Kings   County  to   spit  this  renegade   from   their  mouths,   to 
drive  this   reptile   from   their   soil,   which   he   has   dishonored  by  the 
slime  of  corruption  .  .  .  He  has  hovered  around  this  house  for  the 
last  six  days  like  a  political  prostitute,  plying  his  trade,  exposing  his 
person,  performing  his  lascivious  gestures,  until  at  length  the  Republi 
can  party  enter  into  an  illicit  connection  with  him,   and  his  election 
will  be  the  bastard  offspring  of  their  embrace  (Cheers  in  the  galleries)" 
—Argus,  Jan.  17. 

*  Herald,  Jan.  18;  the  Argus  version  is,  "he  might  never  be  inau 
gurated"  (Argus,  Jan.  20). 
5  Herald,  Jan.  18 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  19. 


268      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [468 

sured  him  in  bitter  terms,  and  sent  a  committee  to  bring 
pressure  upon  him,  but  to  no  purpose.1  At  the  session  of  the 
2ist,  the  lobbies,  stairways,  and  passages  of  the  Capitol  and 
even  the  floor  of  the  Chamber  were  so  jammed,  that  an  ad 
journment  was  soon  carried.2  On  the  following  day,  Dean 
withdrew,  and  Eliphaz  J.  Trimmer  of  Monroe  was  substi 
tuted.3  On  the  23d,  a  number  of  ballots  were  at  last  per 
mitted  to  be  taken;  but  as  a  couple  of  Sherwood's  former 
supporters  were  as  yet  unwilling  to  accept  a  Democrat  and 
persisted  in  voting  for  Depew,  no  choice  was  made.4 

On  the  24th,  another  exciting  session  occurred.  Fields, 
seeing  that  Callicot  was  about  to  be  elected,  began  to  fili 
buster.  Points  of  order  being  raised,  Fields  declared  that 
he  would  not  be  called  to  order  and  defied  the  other  side  to 
enforce  any  rule,  inasmuch  as  the  Clerk  presided  merely 
by  sufferance.  His  remarks  were  received  with  approval 
by  the  galleries.5  A  Democrat,  disgusted  at  such  a  scene, 
moved  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  ask  protection  for 
the  House  from  the  Governor.6  Amid  confusion  and  uproar, 
the  Clerk  put  the  question  and  announced  that  it  was  carried. 
The  Senate  had  already  made  a  similar  request,7  but  the 
Governor  replied  that  interference  on  his  part,  except  upon 
the  initiative  of  the  house  requiring  protection,  would  be 
improper.8  To  the  Assembly  committee,  Seymour  now 
promised  that  he  would  see  that  an  adequate  force  should 

1  Herald,  Jan.  20,  22;  Tribune,  Jan.  20,  21. 

3  Herald,  Jan.  22;  Tribune,  Jan.  23;  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  71- 
5  Herald,  Jan.  23 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  23. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp.  72-79- 

5  Herald,  Jan.  25  ;  Tribune,  Jan.  26 ;  Assembly,  Journal,  1863,  pp.  79-&X 

6  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  81. 
1  Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  S3- 

8  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  485-6- 


469]       PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE         269 

be  provided,  and  the  committee  so  reported.  For  the  time 
being,  however,  the  disorder  continued.  The  Clerk  hav 
ing  left  the  chair  for  a  while,  some  one  nominated  Murphy 
of  Erie  for  temporary  speaker.  Mr.  Murphy  himself  put 
the  question,  and  although  no  one  could  tell  whether  it  was 
carried  or  not,  he  sprang  into  the  speaker's  chair.  At  once 
members  rushed  up  and  surrounded  Murphy.  It  looked  as 
if  a  fight  was  imminent ;  but  the  return  of  the  Clerk  fortun 
ately  averted  this.  "  The  scene  while  Mr.  Murphy  was  in 
the  chair,"  wrote  the  Herald  correspondent,  "  would  have 
disgraced  a  barroom  caucus." 

However,  by  this  time,  there  were  many  Democrats  to 
whom  the  tactics  of  such  men  as  Fields  and  Murphy  were 
offensive ;  and  so,  a  resolution  that  a  ballot  for  speaker  should 
be  taken  at  the  next  session,  immediately  after  the  roll  call 
and  before  the  reading  of  the  journal,  without  interruption 
by  debate  or  explanations  upon  any  point  of  any  kind,  was 
finally  adopted.1  On  the  appointed  day,  January  26th,  after 
the  obstreperous  Fields  had  made  one  more  effort  to  prevent 
a  vote,  and,  having  been  called  to  order,  had  been  defeated 
on  appeal  by  the  aid  of  Democrats,  Mr.  Callicot  was  finally 
on  the  ninety-second  ballot  elected  speaker  by  a  vote  of  61 
to  59  for  Trimmer.2  The  struggle  thus  ended  brought  to 
mind  the  contest  for  the  speakership  of  the  Thirty-sixth 
Congress. 

Because  of  the  attitude  of  many  of  his  former  party  as 
sociates,  Callicot  had  a  most  difficult  position  to  fill.  Never 
theless,  he  proved  to  be  an  efficient  and  impartial  presiding 
officer.3  But  the  bad  feeling  and  the  intense  partisan  spirit 
already  engendered  kept  recurring  throughout  the  session. 

1  Herald,  Jan.  25 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  26 ;  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  82. 

*  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  PP-  83,  84. 

3  Herald,  Feb.  5,  April  26 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  29. 


270      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  W AR      [470 

While  the  event  was  still  undecided,  the  Democrats  had  re 
peatedly  raised  against  Callicot  the  old  cry  of  having  made 
a  corrupt  bargain  with  the  Republicans;  and  immediately 
after  the  Assembly  was  at  last  organized,  Fields  offered  a 
resolution  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  investigate 
these  charges  and  also  the  acts  of  Callicot  in  the  Assembly 
of  i860.1  This  proposal  gave  rise  to  warm  debates.  The 
Union  members  succeeded  in  getting  through  the  House  a 
resolution  requiring  specific  charges  in  writing  before  any 
investigating  committee  should  be  named.2  Such  a  docu 
ment  was  presented  by  Fields  in  March.  Callicot  was  ac 
cused  of  having  entered  into  a  corrupt  agreement  with  the 
Chairman  of  the  Republican-Union  State  Committee  and 
another  member  of  that  body,  by  which  Callicot  was  to  vote 
with  that  party  in  effecting  an  organization  of  the  House 
and  in  the  election  of  a  United  States  senator  in  return  for 
his  own  election  as  speaker  and  for  an  amount  of  money 
sufficient  to  enable  him  to  pay  certain  private  debts ;  further, 
he  was  accused  of  having  solicited  while  a  member  of  the 
Assembly  of  1860  money  for  his  vote  on  a  certain  bill.8 
The  composition  of  the  committee  to  investigate  these 
charges  occasioned  further  controversy.  Each  side  claimed 
that  justice  required  that  it  should  have  the  majority  of 
the  members.4  By  a  strict  party  vote,  three  Unionists  and 
two  Democrats  were  chosen  and  the  inquiry  was  limited  to 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  108. 

2  Herald,  Feb.  6;  Argus,  Feb.  7;  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp.  169-1/2. 

3  There  was  also  other  charges.    Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp.  37°-377- 

4  Herald,  Mar.  5,  6,  12;  Argus,  Mar.  5,  13,  14.    The  refusal  of  the 
majority  of  the  committee  to  receive  certain  testimony  led  to  further 
spirited  and  embittered  party  debates   (Argus,  April  7,  9,  I0)»  as  did 
a  bill  to  give  to  the  clerk  during  the  organization  of  the  house  the 
powers  and  duties  of  the  speaker  in  keeping  order  and  enforcing  the 
rules  (Argus,  April  3;  Tribune,  April  3). 


471  ]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        271 

charges  relating  to  the  official  conduct  of  Callicot  as  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Assembly  of  1863  only.1  After  a  number  of 
meetings,  two  reports  were  presented  in  April,  the  Union 
majority  exonerating  Callicot,  and  the  Democratic  minority 
finding  true  the  accusation  that  he  had  received  money 
which  had  controlled  his  official  action  and  offering  a 
resolution  for  his  expulsion.2  The  final  consideration  of 
the  subject  on  the  evening  of  April  2Oth  gave  rise  to  a  dis 
orderly  debate  like  those  of  the  beginning  of  the  session. 
Mr.  Callicot  made  a  long  speech  in  his  own  defense.  Fields 
and  Murphy  led  in  the  attack.  The  former  became  involved 
in  a  warm  controversy,  and  accusations  of  lying  were 
bandied  from  one  side  to  the  other.  The  confusion  and 
noise  increased  as  the  session  wore  on  into  the  early  morn 
ing  hours.  Finally,  the  Union  members  succeeded  in  carry 
ing  the  previous  question,  whereupon  the  Democrats  in  a 
body  started  for  the  doors.  The  majority  report  was  then 
adopted,  and  the  House  immediately  adjourned  at  half  past 
two  in  the  morning.3 

While  the  Assembly  was  still  unorganized,  four  weeks 
had  elapsed  and  no  legislation  had  been  even  considered.4 
The  Senate  had  meanwhile  met  and  adjourned  from  time  to 
time,  having  acted  merely  upon  a  few  unimportant  bills. 
Now,  at  the  end  of  January,  both  houses  were  able  to  begin 
their  proper  work.  On  the  28th,  despite  attempts  of  the 
Democrats  to  filibuster,  a  resolution  to  go  into  joint  con- 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  449. 

*  Herald,  April  17,  18;  Argus,  April  17,  20. 

3  Herald,  April  21 ;   Tribune,  April  22 ;  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp. 
1136-1140. 

4  Except  that,   at  the   session  of   Jan.   isth,  the   House  adopted  a 
resolution  for  the  appointment  of  a  joint  committee  to  draft  a  bill  for 
the  erection  of  a  hospital   for  disabled   soldiers    (Assembly  Journal, 
1863,  p.  66). 


272       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [472 

vention  was  passed  in  the  Assembly  by  a  party  vote,  Callicot 
voting  with  the  Unionists.1 

While  the  speakership  was  yet  at  stake,  the  necessity  on 
both  sides  of  avoiding  the  introduction  of  dissensions  had 
prevented  discussion  of  candidates  for  the  senatorship.  Now 
interest  was  focused  on  the  Union  caucus.  Greeley, 
Opdyke,  Raymond,  and  David  Dudley  Field  went  up  to 
Albany,  the  latter  two  being  themselves  candidates.  From 
the  very  first,  however,  ex-Governor  Morgan  was  in  the 
lead.2  He  was  not  a  radical;  but  he  was  not  obnoxious  to 
that  wing  of  the  party  though  backed  by  Weed.  In  the  ex 
ecutive  chair  he  had  earned  praise  by  vetoing  lobby  projects, 
by  his  services  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  and  by  his  labors 
and  care  during  his  administration  in  raising  soldiers  for  the 
defense  of  the  Union.3  The  radicals  now  charged  Morgan 
with  being  untrue  to  the  principles  of  the  party,  and  with 
having  aided  in  defeating  the  Union  ticket  in  1862.  How 
ever,  these  accusations  were  met  by  a  letter  from  Morgan, 
handed  around  in  the  caucus,  in  which  he  declared  himself 
strongly  in  favor  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  and 
denied  any  failure  cordially  to  support  Wadsworth.4  The 
radicals  were  unable  to  concentrate  their  strength.  When 
the  caucus  met  on  the  2nd  of  February,  an  informal  ballot 
resulted  in  Morgan  receiving  25  votes  to  15  for  Daniel  S. 
Dickinson,  n  for  C.  B.  Sedgwick,  16  for  Preston  King,  7 
for  D.  D.  Field,  6  for  Henry  J.  Raymond,  and  6  scattering. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp.  129-131. 

2  Herald,  Jan.  10,  29 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  30. 

3  See  tribute  of  the  Albany  Argus  (the  organ  of  the  Democrats)  in 
the  issue  of  Jan.  I,  1863;  also  the  letter  inviting  Morgan  to  a  public 
dinner  in  recognition  of  his  services,   signed  by  the  most  prominent 
citizens    of    Albany,    including    among    Democrats    Erastus    Corning, 
Calvert    Comstock,    William    Cassidy,    Peter    Cagger,    and    Amasa    J. 
Parker  (Tribune,  Jan.  17). 

4  Herald,  Feb.   i  ;   Tribune,  Feb.  4 ;  also  Herald,  Feb.  3  and  Argus, 
Feb.  4  for  Senator  Truman's  repetition  of  these  charges. 


PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE 


273 


On  the  first  formal  ballot,  Morgan  had  39  votes,  only  five 
short  of  the  number  necessary  to  nominate.  The  second 
formal  ballot  gave  him  more  than  enough,  resulting  as  fol 
lows:  Morgan  50,  Dickinson  13,  King  n,  Raymond  9, 
Field  2,  and  Sedgwick  i.1 

Meanwhile,  in  the  Democratic  caucus,  the  empty  honor  of 
a  nomination  had  been  the  cause  of  contention.  The  am 
bitious  chieftain  of  Mozart  Hall  desired  to  be  named,  and 
he  himself  together  with  several  lieutenants  came  up  to 
Albany  to  manage  his  campaign.2  Very  many  of  the 
up-State  legislators,  however,  distrusted  Wood;  and  of 
course,  the  Regency  leaders  were  against  him.  His  sup 
porters  were  unable  to  prevent  the  adoption  of  a  resolution 
declaring  it  inexpedient  for  the  caucus  to  nominate  any  one 
and  leaving  each  member  to  vote  for  such  person  as  he 
thought  proper.8  At  a  meeting  on  the  following  morning, 
however,  this  resolution  was  reconsidered,  and  an  informal 
ballot  taken.  This  resulted  in  Erastus  Corning  receiving  28 
votes,  Fernando  Wood  20,  scattering  16.  Coming's  nomin 
ation  was  then  made  unanimous.4  Wood,  through  the  alli 
ance  with  Tammany  in  the  preceding  election,  had  gotten 
a  sort  of  hold  on  that  organization;  but  the  Regency  stood 
as  a  bar  to  his  further  advance  toward  the  control  of 
the  forces  of  the  state  Democracy.  Back  of  this  oppo 
sition  was  not  only  rivalry  between  New  York  City  and 
the  rest  of  the  State,  but  a  dislike  for  Wood  and  his 
methods. 

On  the  3rd  of  February,  each  house  of  the  Legislature 

1  Herald,  Feb.  3  ;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Feb.  3. 

2  Herald,  Feb.  4  ;  Tribune,  Feb.  4. 

3  Herald,  Feb.  3;  Tribune,  Feb.  3. 

4  Argus,  Feb.  5;  Herald,  Feb.  4.    The  latter  gives  the  vote  slightly 
different. 


274       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [474 

proceeded  to  ballot  for  United  States  senator.  In  the 
Senate,  23  votes  were  cast  for  Morgan  and  7  for  Corning.1 
In  the  Assembly  the  result  was :  Morgan  64,  Corning  62, 
Wood  i,  and  John  A.  Dix  i,  the  last  being  Speaker  Cal- 
licot's  vote.  There  was  thus  no  choice.  A  second  ballot 
being  taken,  all  the  Union  members  and  Callicot  voted  for 
Dix,  who  received  65  votes  to  63  for  Corning.  Dix 
was  accordingly  the  Assembly's  nominee.2  The  two  houses 
having  disagreed,  they  entered  into  joint  session,  and  Mor 
gan  was  elected  on  the  first  ballot  by  a  vote  of  86  to  70  for 
Corning,  i  for  Dix,  and  i  for  Dickinson.3  The  significance 
of  the  contest  lay  in  the  victory  of  the  conservative  wing 
of  the  Union  party.  Just  before  the  nomination  of  Morgan 
by  the  caucus,  Weed  announced  his  retirement  from  the 
editorship  of  the  Albany  Evening  Journal — to  the  intense 
satisfaction  of  the  radicals;  but  this  battle  showed  that  he 
was  still  a  power  in  the  politics  of  the  State.  The  high 
water  mark  of  the  anti-Weed  wing  during  the  war  was 
probably  attained  at  the  state  convention  which  nominated 
Wadsworth.  By  the  following  spring,  the  adherents  of 
Weed  seem  to  have  been  again  on  top,  though  not  because 
of  any  growth  of  liking  for  his  conservative  views. 

In  the  number  and  intensity  of  partisan  discussions,  the 
legislative  session  of  1863  contrasted  greatly  with  that  of  the 
preceding  year.  That  part  of  Governor  Seymour's  annual 
message  which  expressed  his  ideas  on  the  war  and  on  the 
questions  arising  out  of  it,  occasioned  in  both  houses  resolu 
tions,  debates,  and  many  set  speeches  on  those  subjects. 
Night  after  night  the  Senate  and  the  Assembly  sat  in  com- 

1  Senate  Journal,  1863,  pp.  95,  96. 

2  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp.  151,  152. 
8  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  154. 


475]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        275 

mittee  of  the  whole  on  the  Governor's  message.1  In  the 
matter  of  arbitrary  arrests,  the  Democrats  had  an  issue 
where  they  could  safely  venture  from  mere  talk  to  action. 
Accordingly,  as  soon  as  the  Assembly  was  organized,  Mr. 
Dean,  the  Democratic  leader  in  the  House,  introduced  a  re 
solution  reciting  that  since  July,  1861,  several  citizens  of  the 
State  of  New  York  had  been  arrested  without  process  of  law 
and  imprisoned  without  warrant  within  the  State;  that  oth 
ers  had  been  so  apprehended  and  taken,  in  violation  of  the 
statutes,  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State;  that  it  was  alleged 
that  state  officials  had  aided  in  such  actions ;  that  the  public 
prisons  of  the  State  had  been  used  for  the  confinement  of 
prisoners  thus  illegally  held;  and  that  state  judges  were  ac 
cused  of  having  refused  writs  of  habeas  corpus  in  such  cases. 
The  resolution  further  provided  for  the  appointment  of  a 
select  committee  of  investigation.2  This  proposal  was,  of 
course,  opposed  by  the  Union  members,  who  openly  de 
fended  the  arbitrary  arrests.  After  being  debated  at 
length,3  the  resolution  was  finally  defeated  by  a  majority 
of  one  vote — that  of  the  Speaker — the  division  being  other 
wise  a  strictly  party  one.4 

Resolutions  extravagantly  praising  General  McClellan  and 
requesting  him  to  visit  the  capital  as  the  guest  of  the  State  5 
were  introduced  and  strenuously  pressed  by  the  Democrats, 
arousing  thereby  much  partisan  feeling.  The  Unionists  op- 

1  Argus,  Jan.  30,  31,  Feb.  14,  20,  27,  Mar.  2,  4,  5,  6,  7,  12;  Herald, 
Jan.  29,  30,  Feb.  13,  19,  27,  28,  Mar.  6,  n. 

2  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp.  115,  116. 

3  Herald,  Jan.  30,  31,  Feb.  n,  18,  Mar.  6,  21;  Argus,  Jan.  31,  Feb.  12, 
18,  Mar.  7,  21. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  546. 

5  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  188. 


276      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [476 

posed  such  an  invitation  as  a  political  move.1  Certainly 
the  resolutions,  if  adopted,  would  have  been  generally  con 
strued  as  not  merely  an  honor  to  McClellan  but  also  a  re 
buke  to  the  administration  at  Washington.  Yet  because 
of  the  widespread  popularity  of  McClellan,  it  was  a  delicate 
subject  for  the  Union  legislators.  One  member  of  the 
Assembly  wished  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  eulogy  of 
McClellan's  services,  extending  the  courtesy  to  him  merely 
as  an  officer  of  high  rank;  another  by  inserting  the  names 
of  Burnside,  Hooker,  and  other  generals.2  The  next  day, 
after  the  recital  that  McClellan  had  "  three  times  secured 
the  national  capital  from  the  hands  of  the  rebels  "  had  been 
stricken  out,  the  resolutions  passed  by  an  almost  unanimous 
vote,  all  but  a  few  of  the  Union  members  probably  deeming 
it  indiscreet  wholly  to  oppose  the  proceeding.8  But  in  the 
Senate,  on  the  motion  of  a  Unionist,  the  resolutions  were 
tabled  by  a  party  vote,  and  that  too,  directly  after  honoring 
General  Corcoran  by  extending  to  him  during  his  stay  in 
Albany  the  privileges  of  the  floor.4 

The  emancipation  policy  of  the  administration  was  an 
other  subject  of  partisan  discussion  in  both  houses.5  In  the 
Senate,  the  Union  members  were  able  to  pass  resolutions 
approving  the  President's  proclamation.6  But  although  a 
similar  resolution  was  introduced  in  the  Assembly,7  the 
Democrats  were  too  numerous  there  to  allow  of  its  adoption. 

Three  matters  concerned  more  directly  with  New  York 

1  Herald,  Feb.  12 ;  Tribune,  Feb.  12. 
J  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  210. 

3  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  220. 

4  Senate    Journal,    1863,    p.    152.     Five    Unionists    voted    with    the 
Democrats. 

5  Herald,  Feb.  14;  Argus,  Feb.  14. 

6  Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  136. 

T  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  P-  232. 


477]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        277 

and  yet  growing  out  of  the  war  occasioned  warm  partisan 
debates.  One  of  these  subjects  was  whether  the  State  should 
pay  the  interest  on  its  debt  in  specie  or  in  greenbacks.  Most 
of  the  Union  members  opposed  the  former  as  a  blow  at  the 
greenback  and  at  the  financial  policy  of  the  national  admin 
istration.  The  greater  number  of  the  Democrats  and  a  few 
Unionists  maintained  that  the  credit  of  the  State  should  be 
upheld,  and  that  therefore  payment  should  be  made  in  coin. 
The  banks  of  New  York  City  made  urgent  representations 
in  favor  of  such  a  course; *  and  Seymour  sent  a  message 
to  both  houses,  recommending  the  same.2  A  resolution  to 
pay  interest  in  coin  to  foreign  creditors  only  was  adopted 
in  the  Senate,  the  debate  and  division  being  on  party  lines.8 
In  the  Assembly,  a  resolution  providing  for  payment  in 
coin  to  all  creditors  except  incorporated  banks,  banking 
associations,  and  other  corporations  existing  by  virtue  of 
the  statutes  of  this  State,  passed  unanimously ; 4  for  there 
was  a  feeling  that  the  banks  had  wronged  the  public  by 
violating  the  pledge  printed  on  their  bills,  to  exchange  the 
latter  for  specie.5  But  the  Senate  refused  to  recede  from 
its  position,  and  the  Assembly  yielded.6 

Another  party  measure  of  this  session  was  a  bill  author- 

Herald,  April  i ;  Argus,  April  I. 

2  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  490-493. 

3  Senate  Journal,  1863,  pp.  384,  388;  Herald,  April  i.    The  vote  was 
not  a  strictly  party  one,  inasmuch  as  in  the  Senate   four  Unionists 
voted  with  the  Democrats  to  pay  the  entire  interest  in  specie;  on  the 
other  hand,  seventeen  Democrats  in  the  Assembly  voted  against  an 
amendment  to  pay  all  creditors  their  interest  in  gold  (Argus,  April  3). 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  708. 

s  Referring  to  the  Assembly  debate  of  April  ist,  the  Herald  (April 
2)  said:  "Nearly  every  one  who  spoke  .  .  .  was  strongly  opposed  to 
paying  any  of  the  banks,  which  have  suspended  specie  payment,  in 
specie  .  .  .  [There  was]  a  bitter  feeling  against  the  banks." 

6  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  718. 


278       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [478 

izing  the  formation  of  national  banks  and  allowing  state 
banks  to  become  national  banks.1  This  proposed  legislation 
was  strongly  opposed  by  the  Democrats  who  claimed  that  it 
was  a  surrender  of  the  rights  of  the  State  and  a  scheme  of 
consolidation.2  Nor  were  all  the  Unionists  in  favor  of  the 
bill.  Though  it  was  passed  in  the  Senate,3  the  Assembly 
struck  out  all  but  two  sections  providing  that  two-thirds  of 
the  required  deposit  with  the  banking  department  might  be 
United  States  securities  instead  of  those  of  New  York;  and 
the  upper  house  concurred  in  the  amendment.4  Thus,  for 
the  time  being,  the  state  institutions  were  denied  permission 
to  organize  under  the  national  banking  law. 

The  belief  that  Wadsworth  had  lost  the  election  of  1862 
because  of  the  absence  of  so  many  administration  support 
ers  in  the  army  stimulated  an  effort  by  the  Unionists  to  give 
the  ballot  to  those  in  the  federal  military  service.  Penn 
sylvania,  Iowa,  Missouri,  Minnesota,  Kansas,  Wisconsin, 
and  Connecticut  had  already  passed  such  laws.5  From  the 
beginning  of  the  year  the  Tribune  kept  up  an  incessant 
campaign  in  favor  of  a  similar  measure  for  New  York.  The 
state  constitution  provided  that  a  properly  qualified  citizen 
who  had  been  an  inhabitant  of  the  State  one  year  and  a  resi 
dent  of  the  county  where  he  might  offer  his  vote  for  four 

1  Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  516. 

1  Argus,  April  10,  21:  Democratic  legislative  address,  printed  in  the 
Herald,  April  29. 

'Senate  Journal,  1863,  pp.  516,  517.  Two  Unionists  voted  with  the 
Democrats  against  the  bill. 

4  Argus,  April  27.     From  the  entry  in  the  Assembly  Journal  (p.  1269) 
the  contents  of  the  sections  retained  cannot  be  told.     Even  against  the 
amended    measure,    twenty-six    Democrats    voted    nay.     For   the    con 
currence  of  the  Senate,  see  Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  791. 

5  Tribune  editorial,  Jan.  13.    The  Connecticut  law  had  been  declared 
unconstitutional  by  the  highest  court  of  that  State. 


479]       PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE         279 

months  next  preceding  an  election,  should  be  entitled  to  vote 
in  the  election  district  of  which  he  was  at  the  time  a  resident, 
and  not  elsewhere.  But  another  section  provided  that  no 
person  should  be  deemed  to  have  lost  a  residence  by  reason 
of  his  absence  in  the  service  of  the  United  States.  The  latter 
clause  fitted  the  needs  of  the  Unionists,  but  the  former  was 
an  obstacle  around  which  a  way  must  be  found.  In  the 
end,  the  Union  members  sought  to  avoid  the  constitutional 
objections  to  a  soldiers'  voting  bill  by  a  measure  authoriz 
ing  volunteers  in  the  army  and  navy  to  vote  by  proxy.  In 
brief,  the  bill  provided  that  a  legal  voter  in  the  service 
might  empower  any  voter  and  freeholder  of  his  election 
district  to  cast  a  ballot  for  him  by  transmitting  to  such 
citizen  a  written  certificate,  duly  attested  by  a  witness  and 
acknowledged  before  a  commanding  officer;  suitable  pro 
visions  to  guard  against  dishonesty  were  included.1  The 
Democrats  steadily  opposed  such  a  measure  as  unconstitu 
tional  and  as  liable  to  fraudulent  abuses.2  The  bill,  how 
ever,  was  passed  in  the  Senate  by  a  party  vote.3 

The  Democrats  perceived  that  while  they  might  safely 
fight  this  bill,  it  would  be  politically  unwise  to  resist  ab 
solutely  the  giving  of  the  ballot  to  the  soldiers.  Accord 
ingly,  when  the  Senate  bill  came  up  in  the  Assembly,  Mr. 
Dean  offered  concurrent  resolutions  to  amend  the  constitu 
tion  so  as  to  allow  those  in  the  federal  military  service  to 
vote.4  Of  course,  such  an  amendment,  requiring  favorable 
action  by  two  successive  legislatures  and  ratification  by  the 

1  Tribune,  May  6. 

2  Herald,  Mar.  29,  April  18;  Tribune,  Mar.  23,  April  2;  Argus,  Mar. 
21,  29,  April  20. 

3  All   voting  aye  were   Unionists ;    all   except   one  nay,    Democrats. 
Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  395. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  871. 


28o       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [480 

people,  would  not  permit  the  soldiers  to  vote  until  1864,  and 
then  only  if  a  special  election  should  be  held  to  ascertain  the 
will  of  the  people  on  the  proposition.  If  no  submission  was 
made  until  the  regular  election  day,  the  soldiers  could  not 
vote  until  1865,  and  thus  they  would  have  no  voice  in  choos 
ing  the  next  president.  It  was  argued  with  plausibility 
that  in  two  years  there  would  be  either  no  Union  or  no  war, 
and  that  to  postpone  the  matter  for  so  long  a  time  would 
practically  amount  to  a  denial  of  the  franchise  to  those  in  the 
field.1  Moreover,  as  the  Tribune  truly  urged,  such  a  special 
election  would  itself  be  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  con 
stitution,  which  intended  "  that  two  General  Elections  should 
intervene  between  the  inception  and  the  perfection  "  of  an 
amendment.  Then  too,  a  special  election  would  entail 
heavy  expense.2  The  Unionists,  of  course,  wanted  the  sol 
diers  to  vote  in  1863,  and  so  they  declared  the  constitutional 
scruples  of  the  Democrats  to  be  a  politic  cloak  to  hide  op 
position  to  granting  the  privilege  to  soldiers  at  all  and  a  sign 
of  anxiety  lest  the  great  majority  of  them  should  support 
the  Union  ticket. 

While  the  bill  was  pending  in  the  Assembly,  Seymour  sent 
a  message  to  both  houses  protesting  against  it.3  This  was 
a  rather  extraordinary  step,4  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
measure  was  then  in  course  of  consideration  by  the  Legis 
lature.  In  his  communication,  the  Governor  fittingly  repre 
sented  the  consequences  of  giving  the  soldier  the  franchise 
by  a  law  of  doubtful  constitutionality.  He  said : 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  April  14. 

2  Tribune,  April  16. 

3  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  508-512. 

4  The  Governor  was  assailed  on  this  account  by  the  Union  members 
of  the    Senate,   and   defended   by   the   Democrats    (Argus,    April    14; 
Tribune,  April  15). 


481]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        28l 

It  is  possible  that  the  next  Presidential  election  may  be  de 
cided  by  the  vote  of  a  single  State,  and  if  votes  by  proxy  are 
authorized,  it  is  not  impossible  that  such  votes  would,  in  such 
State,  decide  the  election.  ...  It  surely  cannot  be  necessary  to 
impress  .  .  .  the  fearful  danger  which  would  attend  the  com 
plication  of  the  disastrous  civil  war  ...  by  the  interposition 
of  a  well  founded  doubt  as  to  the  person  rightfully  entitled  to 
the  Presidential  office. 

He  then  recommended  the  adoption  of  a  constitutional 
amendment,  and  after  that,  the  passage  of  suitable  legisla 
tion  to  obtain  for  those  absent  in  the  service  perfect  inde 
pendence  in  exercising  the  franchise.  Here  the  Governor 
launched  into  a  rather  uncalled-for  assault  on  the  national 
administration.  "  The  conduct  and  policy  of  high  officials," 
the  message  read, 

have  caused  great  distrust  in  relation  to  the  freedom  from  re 
straint  and  coercion  which  should  be  accorded  to  the  absentees 
in  the  exercise  of  this  right  [i.  e.  of  voting].  ...  It  would  be 
worse  than  a  mockery  to  allow  those  secluded  in  camps  or  upon 
ships  to  vote,  if  they  are  not  permitted  to  receive  letters  and 
papers  from  their  friends,  or  if  they  have  not  the  same  free 
dom  in  reading  public  journals,  accorded  to  their  brethren  at 
home,  to  aid  them  in  the  formation  of  their  opinions  in  respect 
to  the  conduct  of  those  in  power,  the  issues  to  be  decided  at 
the  election,  and  the  character  of  the  opposing  candidates.  If 
the  expression  of  their  opinions  by  the  votes  they  give,  or  by 
customary  political  action,  is  to  subject  officers  to  dismissal 
from  service,  and  soldiers  to  increased  privation,  hardship  and 
exposure,  the  flames  of  civil  war  will  be  kindled  at  the  North. 
I  have  noticed,  with  deep  regret,  attempts  on  the  part  of  some 
of  the  officers  of  the  National  Government,  to  interfere  with 
the  free  enjoyment  of  their  political  opinions  by  persons  in  the 
army.  .  .  .  These  inexcusable  acts  of  official  tyranny  are  ren 
dered  more  objectionable  by  the  language  used  in  their  execu- 


282       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [482 

tion,  which  is  at  once  opprobrious  in  terms  and  a  wanton  and 
unjust  attack  upon  one-half  of  the  people  of  sovereign  and 
loyal  States.  While  subordinate  officers  are  thus  punished  for 
doing  their  duty  as  citizens  at  their  homes,  those  of  high  rank 
have  been  employed  to  interfere  in  the  election  of  States  in 
which  they  are  not  residents.  No  reasonable  man  can  suppose 
that  the  people  of  this  country  will  permit  the  noble  army  .  .  . 
to  be  used  for  electioneering  purposes  by  those  who  are 
charged  with  the  temporary  administration  of  that  government, 
or  who  are  seeking  an  additional  term  of  power. 

The  Attorney-General,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  now  gave  an 
opinion  that  the  bill  was  constitutional.1  Despite  strenu 
ous  Democratic  opposition,2  the  measure  passed  in  the  As 
sembly,  by  a  vote  of  65  to  59,  every  Union  member  and  the 
Speaker  voting  aye,  and  every  other  Democrat  who -voted, 
nay.3  The  Governor  promptly  sent  in  a  veto  message,  de 
claring  the  bill  not  only  unconstitutional  but  also  defective 
in  that  it  afforded  opportunities  for  wholesale  frauds.4 
Again  he  devoted  a  large  part  of  the  message  to  an  attack 
on  the  administration  at  Washington.  Then  he  quoted  in 
full  the  order  of  Adjutant  General  Thomas,  dismissing  from 
the  service  Lieutenant  Edgerly  of  the  Fourth  New  Hampshire 
Volunteers  for  "  circulating  Copperhead  tickets — doing  all 
in  his  power  to  promote  the  success  of  the  rebel  cause  in 

1  Printed  in  the  Tribune,  April  17. 

2  Herald,  April  23;  Tribune,  April  23. 

3  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  pp.  1185-1187. 

4  Some  of  the  objections  of  Seymour  seem  frivolous  or  dictated  by 
partisan    spirit,   e.   g. :    "  It    [the   bill]    does   not   require   the   proxy   of 
the  soldier  to  be  proven  before  the  representative  of  the  State,  but 
gives  the  power  only  to  field  officers  of  regiments,  ...   ;  it  does  not 
permit  the  soldier  to  choose  the  friend  in  whom  he  would  most  confide 
as  his  proxy,  but  requires  him  to  select  one  from  the  class  of  free 
holders  .      .  "  etc. 


483]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        283 

his  state;  "  and  Seymour  waxed  indignant  as  he  concluded 
with  a  protest  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  New  York 
against  such  wrongs.1  The  Senate  passed  the  bill  over  the 
veto ; 2  but  of  course  the  Governor  could  not  be  overridden 
in  the  Assembly,  as  that  house  was  too  evenly  divided.3 
On  the  principle  of  taking  half  a  loaf  rather  than  none,  the 
Unionists  now  accepted  the  proposal  of  the  Democrats  for 
the  passage  of  concurrent  resolutions  to  amend  the  constitu 
tion;  and  later  Seymour  gave  his  approval.4  The  Senate 
likewise  adopted  by  a  vote  of  16  to  10  resolutions  declaring 
the  Governor's  first  message  on  the  soldiers'  voting  bill 
extra-official  as  well  as  a  breach  of  the  privileges  of  the 
Senate  and  laying  the  communication  on  the  table  without 
action  thereon.5 

It  was  at  this  time  that  the  Legislatures  of  Illinois  and 
Indiana  were  showing  such  strong  Copperhead  sympathies. 
Of  course  the  New  York  Democrats  could  not  have  gotten 
peace  resolutions  through  either  house.  A  resolution  in 
structing  New  York's  senators  and  representatives  in  Con 
gress,  in  cooperation  with  those  of  other  states,  to  use  all 

1  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  513-516. 

2  Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  794. 

3  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  1278. 

4  The  concurrent   resolutions  were  passed  in   the  Assembly  imme 
diately  after  the  passage  of  the  soldiers'  proxy  bill  and  before  the  veto 
of   the    latter — probably   in    anticipation    of    such    a    veto    (Assembly 
Journal,  1863,  p.  1278).    The  Senate  had  previously  tabled  such  con 
current  resolutions  by  a  vote  of  16  to  8  (Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  740). 
They  were  now  passed  19  to  10   (Senate  Journal,  1863,  P-  797)-     All 
the  nays  were  Unionists.    Their  ground  for  this  attitude,  as  stated  by  one 
of  them,  was  that  by  voting  for  the  resolution  they  would  practically 
admit  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  bill  previously  passed. 

5  Senate  Journal,   1863,   p.   799.     While  the  measure  was    familiarly 
spoken  of  as  the  soldiers'  proxy  bill,  its  title  was,  "An  act  to  secure 
the  elective  franchise  to  the  qualified  voters  of  the  army  and  navy,"  etc 


284       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [484 

proper  means  to  facilitate  the  return  of  the  seceded  states 
to  the  Union  or,  if  that  could  not  be  successfully  consum 
mated,  to  adopt  such  measures  as  would  secure  an  early, 
honorable,  and  permanent  peace,  was  introduced  by  one 
Democrat,1  and  a  petition  praying  for  such  action  by  the 
Legislature  as  would  induce  the  national  government  to  end 
the  war,  was  presented  by  another.2  It  is  rather  noteworthy 
that  beyond  this  no  demonstration  in  favor  of  peace  was 
made  by  the  Democrats  of  either  house  during  the  session. 
This  fact  was  significant  of  the  comparative  weakness  of  the 
peace  element  in  the  ranks  of  the  New  York  Democracy  at 
that  time,  and  also  of  the  dislike  and  jealousy  on  the  part 
of  the  Regency  and  its  up-State  followers  toward  the  prin 
cipal  peace  advocate  in  New  York,  Fernando  Wood.  On  the 
other  hand,  a  bill  to  confirm  the  acts  of  Governor  Morgan 
in  borrowing  money  to  pay  state  bounties,  and  to  make 
an  appropriation  therefor,  was  passed  in  the  Assembly  on 
motion  of  the  Democratic  leader  on  the  floor,  and  gave  rise 
to  no  party  opposition.3  So,  too,  a  general  bounty  bill, 
legalizing  taxation  of  towns  to  defray  such  expenses,  was 
passed  almost  unanimously.4 

This  Legislature,  perhaps  the  most  disorderly  in  the  his 
tory  of  the  State,5  ended  with  the  arrest  of  one  member  for 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  116. 

1  Herald,  Jan.  31;  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  141  (which  does  not 
fully  describe  the  nature  of  the  petition). 

3  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  272 ;  Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  131. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1863,  p.  272 ;  Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  144-    Four 
Democrats  in  the  Assembly  voted  nay. 

6  "The  most  scandalous  legislative  session  in  the  annals  of  the 
State  of  New  York  "—Herald,  April  26.  "  It  is  in  vain  to  deny  that 
no  Legislature,  except  possibly  that  of  1860,  has  won  for  itself  so 
evil  a  reputation  as  that  of  '63  and  the  curtain  falls  with  criminal 
proceedings  actually  pending  against  one  Assemblyman  and  threatened 
against  others  " — Tribune,  April  27. 


485]      PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        285 

corruption  *  and  with  great  excitement  among  the  rest  over 
the  passage  of  a  Broadway  and  other  New  York  City  rail 
road  bills.  These  enactments,  which  as  the  divisions  show 
were  the  work  of  no  particular  party,  brought  to  mind  the 
scandalous  "  gridiron  "  Legislature  of  1860. 

An  address  2  of  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Legisla 
ture,  issued  at  the  close  of  the  session,  assailed  their  oppo 
nents  on  many  of  the  subjects  mentioned  above  and  dwelt 
upon  the  nefarious  schemes  of  consolidation  which  it  was 
alleged  were  being  executed  at  Washington  and  assisted  by 
the  Republicans  3  in  the  New  York  Legislature — schemes 
denounced  as  usurpations  detrimental  to  the  rights  and 
interests  of  the  State  of  New  York.4  Taking  their  cue 
from  Seymour's  annual  message,  the  legislators  openly 
condemned  the  federal  government  for  resorting  to  a 
draft.  The  party  in  the  majority,  the  address  read,  had 
been  reluctant  to  take  measures  for  the  defense  of  the 
State,  and  had  refused  to  perfect  the  organization  of  the 
militia,  while  the  administration  at  Washington  at  the  same 
time  proposed  "  to  substitute  a  forced  conscription  for  the 
old  reliance  of  the  republic,  a  citizen  militia  and  a  volunteer 
army."  Despite  the  patriotism  of  New  York,  the  address 
continued,  the  administration  refused  any  longer  to  rely 
upon  the  militia  and  the  volunteers  of  the  states  and, 

1  Herald,  April  25 ;  Argus,  April  25. 

2  Printed  in  the  Herald,  April  29.    The  New  York  World,  April  28, 
spoke  of  the  address  as  a  revival  of  "  a  former  time-honored  practice." 

3  The  Democrats  almost  always  persisted  in  calling  their  opponents 
Republicans. 

4 "  But  that  the  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  State  should  volunteer 
to  become  accomplices  in  this  usurpation  and  outrage  would  be  alto 
gether  incredible  if  it  were  not  found  recorded  in  the  journals  .  .  . 
by  the  votes  of  the  republican  majority" — Democratic  legislative 
address. 


286       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [486 

setting  aside  the  executive  and  legislative  authorities  there 
of,  proposed  "  to  absorb  their  functions  and  to  organize  an 
army  by  forced  conscription,  placing  money  above  life,  and 
allowing  those  owing  allegiance  to  the  government  to  es 
cape  service  upon  the  payment  of  a  pecuniary  consideration." 
The  strangest  part  of  this  document  was  the  corollary 
drawn  from  the  alleged  incapacity  of  the  administration,— 
that  the  Republicans  would  make  peace  upon  the  basis  of  a 
permanent  separation  of  the  North  and  the  South.  "  It  is 
notorious,"  declared  the  address, 

that  the  abolition  leaders  boldly  hold  out  this  as  the  probable 
alternative  of  war.  The  men  who  have  dictated  with  most 
authority  and  influence  the  policy  of  the  administration,  hardly 
affect  to  conceal  that  they  will  be  content  with  this  consumma 
tion.  The  conduct  of  the  war  leads  directly  to  such  an  end. 

In  the  name  of  the  Democracy,  they  protested  against  such 
a  termination  to  the  contest,  and  asserted  that  the  only  ac 
ceptable  peace  would  be  one  made  through  restoring  the 
Union  upon  the  basis  of  the  constitution,  with  the  rights  of 
every  state  strengthened  and  guaranteed;  and  that  the  con 
stitution  provided  the  means  for  effecting  this  end  in  the 
shape  of  a  convention  to  amend  and  reaffirm  the  federal 
compact.  They  further  declared  that  every  Democratic 
victory  in  the  North  was  a  step  toward  such  a  goal.  In 
conclusion,  the  address  pronounced  it  the  duty  of  the  Demo 
cracy  of  New  York  to  furnish  to  the  national  administra 
tion  all  constitutional  means  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war 
until  the  armed  force  of  the  South  should  be  broken,  and  to 
struggle  persistently  against  disunion ;  and  it  stated  inciden 
tally  that  the  New  York  Democracy  condemned  heartily 
the  objects  and  aims  of  the  rebellion. 

Greeley,  perhaps,  was  to  some  extent  responsible  for  giv- 


487]       PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE         287 

ing  a  little  plausibility  to  the  claims  of  the  address  that  the 
administration  was  about  to  negotiate  with  the  South  upon 
the  basis  of  separation.  He  had  spread  in  his  powerful  jour 
nal  a  most  foolish  idea.  "  If  three  months  more  of  earnest 
fighting,"  he  wrote,  "  shall  not  serve  to  make  a  serious 
impression  on  the  Rebels — if  the  end  of  that  term  shall 
find  us  no  further  advanced  than  its  beginning — .  .  .  let  us 
bow  to  our  destiny,  and  make  the  best  attainable  peace."  1 
A  little  later  he  had,  in  the  editorials  of  the  Tribune,  pre 
dicted  foreign  mediation,  and  had  contemplated  it  with 
equanimity  as  an  alternative  to  successful  war.2  He  avowed 
that  Switzerland  would  be  acceptable  as  a  mediator,  and 
that  he  would  be  "  willing  to  submit  every  point  in  dispute 
between  the  Unionists  and  the  Confederates  unqualifiedly 
to  her  arbitration,  and  abide  without  flinching  the  result."  3 
Greeley,  however,  was  not  the  whole  Union  party,  not  even 
in  New  York  State.  The  Albany  Evening  Journal  attacked 
the  first  editorial  quoted  above,  calling  it  treason.4  The 
Times  at  once  challenged  the  Tribune  editor's  ideas  on  the 
subject  of  mediation.5  Plainly,  Greeley 's  proposals  on  this 
occasion  formed  another  instance  of  his  embarrassing  aber 
rations. 

The  sweeping  condemnation  of  the  draft  and  the  de 
scription  of  the  three-hundred-dollar  exemption  clause  as 
an  invidious  discrimination  against  the  poor,  which  have 
been  noticed  as  prominent  features  of  the  Democratic  legis 
lative  address,  together  with  similar  utterances  of  a  later 
date,  were  to  bear  fruit  in  New  York  before  many  months 

1  Tribune,  Jan.  22.  *J5.  g.,  Jan.  14,  30. 

3  Tribune,  Feb.  13.     Of  course,  the  opposition  at  once  took  advan 
tage  of  Greeley's  blunder,  e.  g.,  Argus,  Feb.  16,  and  succeeding  days. 

4  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Feb.  2. 

5  New  York  Times,  Jan.  29,  Feb.  5,  7. 


288       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [488 

had  elapsed.  The  New  York  Democrats,  in  their  blindly 
partisan  feeling  against  the  national  administration,  over 
looked  the  fact  that  their  own  State  had  come  very  near  re 
sorting  to  a  draft  in  the  previous  year,  that  volunteering  had 
almost  ceased,  and  that  the  Confederacy  was  rilling  its 
armies  by  a  most  tyrannical  conscription.  Even  the  con 
clusion  of  the  address,  obviously  carefully  worded  so  as  to 
enable  the  party  to  claim  that  it  was  thoroughly  loyal  and 
in  favor  of  the  war,  was  vitiated  by  the  qualifying  word 
"  constitutional  "  in  the  promise  of  means  to  prosecute  the 
war.  At  a  time  when  in  Indiana  and  Illinois,  the  Copper 
heads  were  waxing,  the  New  York  Democrats — until  then 
for  the  most  part  earnestly  striving  to  be  loyal  while  at  the 
same  time  in  opposition, — came  out  with  an  address  "  cal 
culated  to  stir  up  dissensions  and  divisions  among  the  peo 
ple  of  the  loyal  States,  [and]  acts  of  resistance  to  the  con 
scription  and  other  measures  intended  to  strengthen  our 
army  and  navy  and  to  bring  the  war  to  a  successful  issue." 

The  address  of  the  Union  members  of  the  legislature  z 
defended,  of  course,  the  administration  at  Washington  and 
its  measures,  and  claimed  that  depreciation  of  the  govern 
ment  and  carping  at  it  were  equivalent  to  aiding  the  re 
bellion.  This  was  but  another,  if  milder,  version  of  the  old 
charge  of  disloyalty  made  against  the  Democrats  in  1861 
and  1862.  Yet,  in  this  form,  the  accusation  was  not  wholly 
without  some  basis  of  truth;  and  that  fact  constituted  the 
justification  of  a  Union  party.  The  address  replied  to  the 
preposterous  assertion  of  the  Democrats  that  there  was  cause 
for  apprehension  lest  the  administration  conclude  a  dis 
honorable  peace.  The  document  read: 

Dark  shall  be  the  day  and  bitter  the  wail  that  shall  herald  the 
1  Herald,  April  29.  'Printed  in  the  Tribune,  April  29. 


489]       PARTISAN  REVIVAL  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE        289 

triumph  of  this  Rebellion,  which  shall  roll  back  the  civilization 
of  the  age  and  shroud  in  gloom  the  fairest  and  freest  portion 
of  the  earth,  which  shall  blast  the  hopes  of  the  down-trodden 
millions  in  every  land,  and  leave  us  to  drain  to  the  dregs  the 
bitter  cup  of  national  humiliation  and  disgrace — to  hang  our 
heads  in  shame  at  the  mention  of  our  birthplace  and  our  name, 
and  earn  for  us  the  melancholy  reflection  that  we  have  lost  by 
our  cowardice  and  faithlessness  what  our  heroic  fathers  gained 
through  suffering  and  blood.  .  .  .  No,  fellow-citizens,  there  can 
be  no  termination  to  this  conflict  which  shall  not  concede  the 
triumph  of  the  Republic.  However  fondly  we  may  wish  for 
the  better  day,  ...  we  should  still  remember  that  the  price  of 
this  return  must  never  be  the  loss  of  liberty  or  the  sacrifice  of 
honor. 

With  regard  to  the  draft,  the  Union  legislators  earnestly 
seconded  the  demand  for  the  faithful  enforcement  of  the 
law.  The  address  concluded  with  a  calm  condemnation  of 
Seymour  for  vetoing  the  soldiers'  proxy  bill. 


CHAPTER  X 
MOVEMENTS  WITHIN  THE  UNIONIST  RANKS 

OUTSIDE  of  the  Legislature,  politics  in  New  York  were 
very  active  during  the  spring  of  1863.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  year,  parties  there  were  somewhat  unsettled.  Once 
more  there  was  talk  of  a  new  conservative  alliance  between 
the  adherents  of  Weed  and  the  Democrats.1  The  gentle 
ness  with  which  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  handled 
Seymour  at  the  beginning  of  his  administration  was  appar 
ent.  Weed's  paper  actually  commended  the  Governor's  an 
nual  message  of  1863,  including  the  passages  relating  to 
the  draft,  and  expressed  dissent  only  with  that  part  of  the 
document  entitled  "  Limitations  of  Power,  State  Right  and 
Martial  Law."  The  Wadsworth  campaign  with  its  mu 
tual  recrimination  as  to  who  was  to  blame  for  the  defeat,8 

1  Besides  current  newspaper  rumors,  e.   g.    Tribune,   Feb.   7,   Argus, 
Feb.  16,  the  following  occurs  in  the  "  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles  "  under 
date   of    January,    1863 :  "  He    [Weed]    has    professedly    left    his    old 
friends,  but  he  is  to  carry  as  many  as  possible  with  him  into  a  new 
combination  where  he   and   Seward  will  have  Dix,  whom  they  have 
captured  and  whom  they  are  using  ..."    {Atlantic  Monthly,   April, 
1909,  p.  483). 

2  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  7. 

3  Frequent  repetitions  of  the  charge  of  treachery  on  Weed's  part  are 
found  in  the  Tribune  about  the  time  referred  to  above.     On  the  other 
hand,  Weed  assailed  the  Tribune,  Sumner,  Phillips,  Gerrit  Smith,  and 
Greeley  (Albany  Evening  Journal,  Dec.  15,  Jan.  15)  ;  he  also  charged 
Greeley  with  squandering  the  huge  majority  for  the  Union  ticket  of  1861 
by  pressing   the   abolition   issue    for   selfish   reasons    (Albany  Evening 
Journal,  Dec.  9,  1862). 

290  [490 


491  ]         MOVEMENTS  WITHIN  UNIONIST  RANKS  291 

had  left  no  good  feeling  in  the  Republican-Union  ranks. 
In  January,  A.  Oakey  Hall,  then  a  prominent  follower  of 
Weed  and  the  district  attorney  of  New  York  County,  went 
over  to  the  Democrats.  He  was  a  witty  lawyer  and  a  popu 
lar  speaker,  but  he  had  earned  a  reputation  as  a  lobbyist 
and  was  afterwards  a  principal  figure  in  the  infamous 
Tweed  ring.  Hall  signalized  his  conversion  by  an  address 
before  a  Democratic  association  on  "  The  Political  Crimes 
Against  the  National  Crisis,  Committed  by  Horace  Greeley 
and  his  Abolition  Associates."  x  A  large  audience  greeted 
with  laughter  every  coarse  allusion  to  the  Tribune's  editor. 
This  villification  of  Greeley  was  so  characteristic  a  feature 
of  New  York  politics  at  that  time  that  it  must  be  noted.2 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Democrats  took  hardly  less  satisfac 
tion  in  the  election  of  Morgan  to  the  Senate  than  did  Weed 
and  his  adherents.  About  the  same  time,  when  the  Canal 
Board  met  to  make  the  annual  appointments,  the  State 
Treasurer  and  the  Secretary  of  State — both  elected  on  the 
Republican  and  People's  tickets  of  1861 — voted  with  the 
three  Democrats  on  the  Board,  and  this  coalition  selected 
none  but  Weed  men  or  Democrats.3 

In  the  State  the  conservative  wing  of  the  Republican- 
Union  party  was  getting  the  upper  hand;  but  the  policies 
advocated  by  the  radical  faction  were  gradually  being 
adopted  by  the  administration  at  Washington.  In  an  edi 
torial  of  January  23rd,  Weed,  after  assailing  "  Phillips, 
Greeley,  Sumner  &  Co."  asked:  "Where  are  we?  and 
whence  are  we  drifting?"  Finally,  he  became  so  disgusted 
that,  after  thirty-three  years'  service,  he  resigned  the  editor- 

1  Herald,  Jan.  21. 

*  A  striking  example  of  such  abuse  of  Greeley  is  contained  in  a 
Herald  editorial  of  Jan.  23;  see  also  on  this  subject,  Ogden's  Life  of 
Godkin,  i,  p.  257. 

3  Tribune,  Feb.  6;  Herald,  Feb.  5;  Argus,  Feb.  5,  9. 


292       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [492 

ship  of  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  and  disposed  of  his 
interest  in  that  paper,  giving  as  reasons  for  his  retire 
ment  the  radical  and  irreconcilable  differences  between  him 
and  his  party  as  to  the  best  means  of  crushing  the  re 
bellion.1  This  step,  however,  did  not  mean  that  Weed  aban 
doned  his .  activity  in  politics.  Moreover,  the  columns  of 
the  Albany  Evening  Journal  were  still  open  to  him,  and  in 
long  letters  he  fired  hot  shot  at  Greeley  and  the  radicals. 
Indeed,  scarcely  had  Weed  announced  his  withdrawal  when 
he  renewed  the  war  with  a  frank  declaration  that  the  cause 
of  his  retirement  was  his  dislike  of  "  the  incendiary  prin 
ciples  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  the  Independent,  the 
extreme  views  of  Messrs.  Sumner,  Phillips,  Gerrit  Smith 
and  their  followers."  Then  came  an  attack  on  Greeley  and 
his  paper  because  of  his  "Let  the  Cotton  States  Go  in 
Peace  "  and  "  On  to  Richmond  "  editorials,  and  because  of 
his  dabbling  with  foreign  mediation.2  Of  course,  Greeley 
replied. 

Weed  had  drawn  upon  himself  another  adversary  also 
by  writing  to  the  Journal  that  the  government,  instead  of 
being  satisfied  with  suppressing  a  disloyal  newspaper  at 
Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania,  "  should  have  suppressed  the 
vastly  more  dangerous  and  incendiary  Independent  of  New 
York."  8  This,  indeed,  was  exactly  the  talk  of  the  Demo 
crats  during  the  campaign  of  1862,  and  they  constantly 
harped  on  this  theme  in  their  press.  In  reply  the  Inde 
pendent  told  at  great  length  what  the  radicals  thought  of 
Weed  and  his  methods.  It  said,  in  part : 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  27.    In  a  later  letter  to  the  editors 
of  the  Evening  Journal  (Mar.  27),  Weed  speaks  of  himself  as  having 
been    "  read    out    of    the    Republican    Party,    and    driven    out    of   the 
Evening  Journal  ..." 

2  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  31. 
s  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Jan.  7. 


493 ]         MOVEMENTS  WITHIN  UNIONIST  RANKS  293 

Mr.  Weed  belongs  to  a  school  of  politicians  .  .  .  who  erect 
politics  into  a  department  outside  of  Christian  ethics  or  relig 
ious  principles  .  .  .  the  school  to  which  he  belongs  is  a  school 
of  politicians  and  not  of  statesmen.  ...  A  statesman  must  be 
a  man  of  comprehensive  principles.  A  politician  has  unlimited 
faith  in  mere  management.  .  .  .  There  can  be  neither  moral 
principle  nor  even  patriotism  in  men  who  have  learned  to  put 
party  above  country,  ...  So  long  as  his  [i.  e.  Weed's]  sphere 
was  New  York,  ...  he  has  been  reasonably  successful.  But 
the  moment  he  attempted,  in  these  great  days  of  revolution,  to 
transfer  to  national  affairs  the  petite  arts  and  snug  shrewd 
ness  of  a  lower  sphere,  he  found  himself  impotent.1 

It  was  rather  unfair  to  Weed  to  accuse  him  of  being 
without  patriotism  and  of  putting  party  above  country. 
One  can  scarcely  doubt  that  Weed  was  a  genuine  lover 
of  his  country  and  on  various  occasions  labored  sincerely 
for  it.  No  wonder  that  Weed  replied  in  the  Albany  Jour 
nal  by  declaring  that  "  No  man's  zeal,  in  favor  of  a  vig 
orous  prosecution  of  the  war,  exceeds  my  own;  nor  has 
solicitude  for  the  welfare  of  my  country  occasioned  in 
others  more  anxious  days  or  more  sleepless  nights ;  .  .  .  "  2 
To  which  the  Tribune  rejoined :  Mr.  Weed's  troubles  "  are 
understood  to  have  been  not  without  their  compensations. 
While  most  of  us  have  grown  poor  during  its  [the  war's] 
progress,  he  is  understood  to  have  become  rich  .  .  .  "  8 
Greeley  also  spoke  of  "  Certain  active,  unprincipled  specu 
lators  in  politics,  who  choose  to  be  regarded  as  '  Seward 
men,'  but  whose  card  and  rule  is  to  take  care  of  No.  i, 
and  who,  to  that  end,  act  under  the  personal  guidance  of 
Mr.  Thurlow  Weed."  4  Under  such  castigation,  Weed  grew 

1  Extract  from  the  Independent,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Feb.  13. 

2  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Feb.  14. 

8  Tribune,  Feb.  16.  4  Tribune,  Mar.  7. 


294       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [494 

more  bitter.  In  another  letter  to  the  Albany  Evening 
Journal,  he  said : 

The  day  is  coming  when  an  insolent  journal  will  not  indulge  its 
licentious  tongue  or  apply  its  indiscriminate  lash  with  impun 
ity  ;  when  an  editor  who  intrigues  secretly  with  a  foreign  min 
ister  and  a  disloyal  member  of  Congress  for  "  peace  upon  the 
best  attainable  terms,"  may  not  shower  his  foul  accusations 
upon  better  and  truer  men;  when  those  who  do  not  wear  the 
Tribune  stripe  and  support  Mr.  Greeley  for  Governor,  Sen 
ator  and  President,  will  not  submit  to  be  anathematized  in  its 
columns;  and  above  all,  when  a  fanatic,  dazed,  muddle-headed 
aspirant  for  office  may  not  arrogantly  lecture  the  President, 
defame  his  Cabinet,  instruct  Congress,  depose  generals  and 
assume  to  command  the  army,  .  .  .  Half  a  million  of  men  will 
not  again  "  go  to  their  graves  like  beds  "  under  the  threats  of 
political  hyenas  who  remain  at  home  howling.  This,  by  the 
way,  is  a  peculiarity  of  abolition  fanaticism.  .  .  .  * 

Such  were  the  amenities  of  politics  in  those  days.  To  an 
able  and  impartial  observer  at  the  time,  it  seemed  that 
hatred  of  Greeley  had  "  become  almost  a  monomania " 
in  Weed  and  colored  his  views  of  the  situation.2  That 

1  Letter   of  Thurlow   Weed  to  the  editors   of  the   Albany  Evening 
Journal,  Mar.  9.     Weed  again  broke  out  at  the  beginning  of  the  cam 
paign.     He  accused  Theodore   Tilton,   editor   of  the  Independent,   of 
shirking  his   duty  when   drafted   and  exclaimed:   "Shame  on  such  a 
sneak !"     Weed   also   assailed    Opdyke,    alleging   that  the   latter's    son 
when  drafted  had  sent  a  substitute.     "  The  Mayor  is  filled  with  pa 
triotism  at  conventions  and  in  proclamations;  he  is  gorged  with  gov 
ernment   contracts;   he   leans   heavily  upon   the  government  to   make 
good  his  lost  profits;  but  his  son  when  drafted  is  not  strong  enough 
to  be  a  soldier !  .  .  .  Out  upon  such  false  pretences — such  cheap  loyalty 
— such  bogus   patriotism"    (Albany  Evening   Journal,    Sept.    17).     In 
a  subsequent  letter,   Weed  reiterated  these  charges  against  Opdyke's 
son  (Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct.  19). 

2  Life  of  Godkin,  i,  p.  257. 


495]          MOVEMENTS  WITHIN  UNIONIST  RANKS  295 

the  ranks  of  the  Union  party  in  New  York  State,  thus  torn, 
were  not  hopelessly  disrupted,  was  remarkable. 

Scarcely  less  troubled  was  the  Democracy  of  New  York. 
By  this  time  it  was  apparent  to  many,  and  should  have  been 
to  all,  that  in  the  face  of  the  repeated  expression  by  the 
Southern  leaders  of  their  determination  to  accept  nothing 
short  of  independence,  the  remedy  so  often  urged  by  the 
Northern  Democrats,  a  restoration  of  the  Union  by  means  of 
a  convention  of  all  the  states,  was  impracticable.  Two  lead 
ing  New  York  Democrats,  John  Van  Buren  and  James  T. 
Brady,  had  the  courage  to  acknowledge  this,  and,  in  the 
early  part  of  1863,  to  go  over  avowedly  to  the  support  of 
the  administration.  Van  Buren,  both  during  and  after  the 
campaign  of  1862,  had  repeatedly  advocated  a  convention 
as  the  proper  means  of  saving  the  Union.  But  now,  in  a 
speech  at  the  Washington's  birthday  banquet  of  the  City  of 
New  York,  he  declared  that  it  was  useless  to  talk  of  negotia 
tion  with  the  South  in  view  of  the  latter's  refusal  to  treat.1 

Following  the  period  of  depression  after  Burnside's  de 
feat,2  there  came  another  outburst  of  patriotic  feeling  in 
New  York,  which  was  not  without  effect  upon  politics. 
On  the  6th  of  March  a  mammoth  war  meeting  was  held 
at  Cooper  Institute,  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a  Loyal 
Union  League.  There,  on  the  same  platform  where  Wil 
liam  Cullen  Bryant  presided  and  such  strong  anti-slavery 
men  as  Mayor  Opdyke  and  David  Dudley  Field  spoke,  Van 
Buren,  Brady,  and  Judge  Daly,  all  three  of  whom  had 
hitherto  refused  to  abandon  the  Democratic  organization, 
came  out  in  favor  of  support  of  the  national  administration 
by  a  united  North.  As  to  the  responsibility  for  the  war, 

1  Herald,  Feb.  24. 

2  At  Fredericksburg,  Dec.  13,  1862. 


296       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [496 

a  favorite  theme  with  Seymour  and  other  Democratic  ora 
tors,  Van  Buren  took  a  position  directly  opposed  to  that 
of  his  former  political  associates,  saying : 

This  is  a  rightful  contest  forced  upon  the  non-slaveholding  and 
the  loyal  slaveholding  States  by  those  who  are  endeavoring  to 
establish  a  republic  within  the  republic,  based  upon  slavery. 
And  to  prostrate  this  rebellion,  I  am  willing  to  devote  any 
means,  any  time,  any  exertion  within  my  power  during  the 
rest  of  my  natural  life. 

While  still  disapproving  of  the  Emancipation  Proclama 
tions,  he  saw  nothing  in  them  which  should  hinder  a  vigor 
ous  prosecution  of  the  war.  He  "  bowed  in  silence  "  to  the 
recent  laws  giving  to  the  President  increased  military  and 
financial  resources  whether  he  favored  his  acts  or  not;  nor 
did  he  consider  it  wrong,  under  the  circumstances,  to  put 
such  immense  powers  into  the  executive's  hands.1 

Not  long  after,  a  similar  meeting  was  held  in  Brooklyn, 
at  which  Van  Buren  and  Brady  again  spoke.  Van  Buren 
said  that  inasmuch  as  the  South  had  refused  all  compro 
mise,  there  was  no  alternative  save  to  fight  out  the  ques 
tion  of  the  country's  existence.  He  saw  no  reason  why 
men  of  all  parties  should  not  fully  cooperate  in  support  of 
the  administration,  for  none  of  its  actions  then  called  for 
serious  opposition.  He  further  defended  the  conscription 
law  as  by  no  means  novel  in  our  history,  and  he  asserted 
that  the  slaves  must  be  freed  by  the  advance  of  the  Union 
armies.2  So  complete  a  change  by  so  prominent  a  leader 
as  Van  Buren  was,  created  a  sensation  in  New  York 

1  Herald,  Mar.  7;  Tribune,  Mar.  7;  the  Argus  charged  that  Forney  of 
Pennsylvania  was  the  originator  of  the  loyal  league  movement  and 
that  his  purpose  was  to  control  the  presidential  election  of  1864 
(Argus,  Mar.  27). 

*  Herald,  Mar.  17. 


MOVEMENTS  WITHIN  UNIONIST  RANKS  297 

politics.  The  Democratic  press  warmly  assailed  Van 
Buren,  Brady,  and  Daly  for  joining  in  a  meeting  with 
notorious  anti-slavery  advocates ; x  and  the  possible  extent 
of  the  defection  might  well  have  caused  alarm.  There  was 
talk  that  the  disintegration  of  the  Democratic  organization 
in  the  State  was  imminent.  Seymour  and  the  Regency  lead 
ers,  however,  were  unable  to  rise  to  the  level  of  Van  Buren, 
and  continued  in  their  illogical  position  of  attempting  at 
once  to  oppose  and  to  sustain  the  government. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  there  appeared  in  the  news 
papers  a  letter  from  Lord  Lyons  2  to  Earl  Russell,  stating 
that  several  Democratic  leaders  of  New  York  had  sought 
in  the  previous  November  interviews  with  his  lordship  on 
the  subject  of  foreign  mediation;  these  politicians  were  de 
scribed  as  favoring  peace  with  the  South  and  as  chiefly  ap 
prehensive  lest  a  premature  offer  of  mediation  should  prove 
"  a  means  of  reviving  the  violent  war  spirit,"  thus  defeat 
ing  the  peace  plans  of  the  conservatives.3  New  York  was 
aroused  by  this  and  other  signs  of  growing  Copperheadism. 
Accordingly,  a  number  of  demonstrations  were  held  to  dis 
prove  any  suspicions  of  New  York  City's  loyalty  and  to  stir 
anew  the  patriotism  of  the  people  to  meet  the  back  fire. 

1  New  York  World,  Mar.  7,  9 ;  New  York  Express,  and  New  York 
Journal  of  Commerce  (quoted  in  the  Herald,  Mar.  n)  ;  attack  by  the 
Albany  Argus  referred  to  by  John  Van  Buren  in  his  speech  at  Madison 
Square  (Herald,  April  21)  ;  Van  Buren  alluded  to  attempts  to  dis 
suade  him  from  going  into  the  loyal  league  movement;  Voorhees  of 
Indiana,  in  a  speech  at  New  York  City  on  Mar.  10,  attacked  Van 
Buren  for  keeping  such  company;  Wood  assailed  Van  Buren  and 
Brady  in  his  speech  at  Mozart  Hall  (see  infra}  ;  other  leading  Demo 
cratic  organs  of  the  State  which  assailed  the  loyal  leagues  were  the 
Utica  Observer,  the  Buffalo  Courier,  and  the  Troy  Times  (Argus, 
Mar.  27). 

*  British  envoy  to  the  United  States. 

8  This  letter  was  published  in  the  Herald,  Mar.  30. 


298       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [49$ 

At  the  end  of  March  a  great  mass-meeting  resulted  in  the 
formation  of  a  second  organization  of  patriotic  citizens, 
the  Loyal  National  League.1  Its  council  included  Francis 
Lieber,  William  Cullen  Bryant,  President  King  of  Columbia 
College,  A.  T.  Stewart,  Mayor  Opdyke,  William  Earl 
Dodge,  William  Curtis  Noyes,  George  Bancroft,  and  John 
J.  Cisco;  while  on  its  executive  committee  were  General 
John  Cochrane,  John  Jay,  Parke  Godwin,  and  Sidney  How 
ard  Gay.  Ward  associations  were  formed  throughout  the 
City;  badges,  certificates  of  membership,  and  loyal  literature 
were  distributed;  and  a  pledge  was  signed.2  Under  the 
auspices  of  the  League,  the  second  anniversary  commemor 
ation  of  the  attack  upon  Fort  Sumter  was  held  in  Union 
Square  in  the  presence  of  a  vast  assemblage,  gathered  "  to 
renew  to  the  government  their  solemn  pledge  and  fixed  re 
solution  to  maintain  unimpaired  the  national  unity."  8  The 
multitude  was  addressed  by  an  array  of  prominent  men 
which  in  itself  would  have  served  to  make  the  occasion  not 
able,  the  list  including  Postmaster-General  Blair,  Governor 
Morton  of  Indiana,  Schuyler  Colfax,  Governor  Peirpoint 
of  Virginia,  General  Fremont,  Roscoe  Conkling,  George  W. 
Julian,  General  Sigel,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  Henry  Wilson, 
George  William  Curtis,  and  Theodore  Tilton.4 

A  week  later,  the  Loyal  Union  League  held  a  monster 
mass-meeting  at  Madison  Square,  with  General  Scott  pre 
siding — a  circumstance  sufficient  to  arouse  enthusiasm.  The 
principal  part  of  the  speaking  was  left  to  War  Democrats : 

1  Herald,  Mar.  21. 

2  Advertisement  of  the  Loyal  National  League  in  the  Herald,  Mar. 
24 ;  a  different  advertisement  of  the  same,  in  the  Tribune,  April  3. 

3  Advertisement  of  the  Loyal  National  League  in  the  Tribune,  April  4. 

4  Herald,  April  12;  Tribune,  April  13.     The  address  adopted  on  this 
occasion  was  prepared  by  Dr.  Lieber. 


499]         MOVEMENTS  WITHIN  UNIONIST  RANKS  299 

George  Bancroft,  John  Van  Buren,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson, 
and  Lyman  Tremain.  Van  Buren  declared  that  "  the  time 
had  come  when  party  considerations  must  cease  to  operate, 
and  when  the  people  of  this  country  with  entire  unanimity 
must  uphold  the  government  of  the  country  irrespective  of 
party  considerations."  He  attacked  Mozart  Hall's  peace 
resolutions,  and  said  :  "  Now,  there  is  but  one  thing  to  do — 
that  is  to  fight.  ...  It  is  impossible  that  it  [the  war]  can 
be  protracted  for  any  length  of  time  if  we  are  a  united 
people,  and  to  be  a  united  people  we  must  discard  political 
considerations."  1  This  was  precisely  the  fundamental 
principle  on  which  the  Union  party  had  been  founded. 
That  Wood  and  Dean  Richmond,  who  were  mere  politicians, 
were  unable,  after  the  first  outburst  of  patriotism  which 
swept  the  North  in  1861,  to  rise  to  such  a  height  is  not  as 
tonishing.  But  that  Horatio  Seymour  clung  to  his  narrow 
partisan  views  ought  to  lessen  our  estimate  of  his  states 
manship.  Had  Seymour  now  acted  with  Van  Buren,  his 
companion  in  the  campaign  of  1862,  the  loyal  masses  in  this 
State  and  perhaps  in  others  would  very  likely  have  been 
undistracted  by  political  differences — for  a  time  at  least; 
and  conditions  approximating  those  of  April  and  May, 
1 86 1,  might  have  once  more  prevailed  in  New  York  State 
at  a  period  when  the  administration  at  Washington  was  in 
dire  need  of  the  solid  support  of  the  North. 

Among  the  resolutions  adopted  at  the  Madison  Square 
meeting  was  one  providing  for  the  holding  of  a  state 
mass-meeting  at  Utica.  The  committee  appointed  to  issue 
the  call  was  significantly  headed  by  a  War  Democrat, 
General  John  A.  Dix.  From  New  York  City,  the  loyal 
league  movement  spread  over  the  State.2  The  opposition 

1  Herald,   April  21 ;    Tribune,  April  21. 

1  The  call  issued  by  the  Loyal  National  League  speaks  of  the  or- 


3oo       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [500 

papers  declared  that  the  leagues,  despite  their  profession 
of  non-partisanship  and  of  having  for  their  objects  the  dis 
semination  of  sentiments  of  loyalty,  the  denunciation  of 
treason,  and  the  upholding  of  the  government  in  its  de 
termination  to  suppress  the  rebellion,1  were  masked  party 
organizations.2  The  Argus  denounced  the  movement  day 
after  day.  The  charge  of  being  secret  bodies  was  frequently 
raised  against  the  leagues,  and  there  was  apparently  some 
basis  of  truth  for  this  accusation.8  One  leading  paper  went 
further,  and  affirmed  that  the  Loyal  National  League  was 
gotten  up  to  help  Chase  to  get  the  presidency  and  that  the 
Loyal  Union  League  was  a  machine  in  the  interests  of 
Seward.4  Indeed,  Thurlow  Weed  warned  Seward  that  the 

ganization  as  established  in  every  county  of  the  State,  and  it  is  signed 
by  secretaries,  etc.,  of  a  great  number  of  different  county  leagues 
(Advertisement  of  the  Loyal  National  League  in  the  Tribune,  May  19). 

1  Circular  of  the  Loyal  Union  League  printed  in  the  Tribune,  Mar.  20. 

2  E.  g.  the  Argus  of  Mar.  25th  said:  "It  was  idle  to  have  expected 
that  the  foolish  game  of  a  year  ago,  of  rushing  Democrats  into  pre 
tended    '  No    Party '    organizations    could    be    repeated    at   this    time, 
.  .  .  the  '  Loyal  Union  Leagues '  of  a  week  ago  have  sunk  into  mere 
'  Wide   Awake   Clubs/ — governed   by   partisans,    and   organized   upon 
the   narrowest  basis   of   abolition   principles.  .  .  .  The   '  Loyal   Union 
Leagues'  are  to  re-elect  President  Lincoln  and  perpetrate  the  reign 
of  Shoddy  for  another  four  years  after  1865."    The  Argus  of  May 
26th  said :  "  What  then  mean  the  denunciations  of  Democrats  at  all 
the  gatherings  of  these  so  called  'Loyal  Leagues?'    Why,  at  the  re 
cent  Albany  meeting  to  appoint  delegates  to  the  great  Utica  gather 
ing,  did  Dickinson,  and  Townsend,  and  Nye,  declaim  and  foam  and 
rage  against  Governor  Seymour,  and  the  Democratic  party  generally? 
'These  Leagues  ignore  party  and  partisans,'  do  they?    Attend  one  of 
their   gatherings   and   listen   to   the   speeches,    and   see   whether   that 
can   be   so— whether  the   staple  of  the   speeches   will  not  consist  of 
Republican    and   Abolition    abuse   of   the   men    and   measures   of   the 
Democracy  ..." 

8  At  least,  their  conventions  held  secret  sessions. 
4  Herald,  May  26,  28,  31. 


501  ]         MOVEMENTS  WITHIN  UNIONIST  RANKS  301 

loyal  leagues  were  being  used  to  further  Chase's  presidential 
chances,1  and  Seward  evidently  had  some  apprehensions  of 
this.2  Certainly  there  were  two  rival  leagues  and  pos 
sibly  Seward  men  were  in  control  of  one  and  Chase  ad 
herents  of  the  other.  But  the  existence  of  the  two  organi 
zations  seems  to  have  been  due  partly  to  accidental  and 
partly  to  personal  reasons,  and  the  allegation  that  the 
leagues  were  respectively  Chase  and  Seward  machines  was 
probably  untrue.3  Far  from  being  political  bodies,  they 
appear  to  have  been  the  outgrowth  of  a  genuine  patriotic 
uprising.  Nevertheless,  every  such  movement,  no  matter 
how  much  it  kept  within  its  professed  objects  of  supporting 
a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  and  to  that  end,  the  lay 
ing  aside  of  party,  indirectly  maintained  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Union  party,  indirectly  strengthened  it, 
and  therefore  was  not  without  a  political  effect. 

On  the  26th  of  May,  the  Loyal  National  League  held  a 
state  convention  at  Utica,  with  every  county  but  two  rep 
resented.  General  John  Cochrane,  a  War  Democrat,  pre 
sided;  and  among  those  present  were  Greeley,  Alvord, 
Roscoe  Conkling,  and  Gerrit  Smith.  The  resolutions 
adopted  showed  that  the  loyal  league  movement  stood  for 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  viii,  p.  315,  quoting  MS.  letter 
of  Weed  to  Seward. 

2  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  viii,  p.  315. 

"  They  have  no  more  relation  to  Chase  or  Seward  than  to  the  man 
in  the  moon" — Tribune,  May  29.  Nicolay  and  Hay,  speaking  of  the 
Union  League  generally  (apparently  they  use  the  term  "Union 
League"  as  synonymous  with  loyal  league),  and  not  of  that  in  New 
York  State,  say  that  an  effort  was  made  to  commit  the  organization 
"to  some  measure  hostile  to  Mr.  Lincoln,"  but  that  such  attempts 
failed  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  315).  Further  on,  they  speak  of  the 
anxiety  of  Lincoln's  friends  lest  the  Union  Leagues  should  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  President's  opponents  and  of  the  groundlessness  of 
these  apprehensions  (Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  pp.  56-7). 


302        NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [502 

the  same  basic  ideas  as  the  Union  party.  They  denounced 
party  organizations  in  time  of  war,  pledged  earnest  sup 
port  to  the  government,  declared  that  the  success  of  the 
rebellion  would  mean  the  overthrow  of  republican  institu 
tions,  and  favored  allowing  soldiers,  wherever  stationed,  the 
right  to  vote.  The  speakers  generally  gave  full  approval 
to  the  arrest  of  Vallandigham,  and  a  resolution  to  that  ef 
fect  was  only  side-tracked  as  a  matter  of  policy.  The  con 
vention  also  adopted  an  address,  appointed  a  state  execu 
tive  committee,  and  instructed  the  latter  to  confer  with 
other  loyal  leagues.1  On  the  following  day,  the  Loyal 
Union  League  held  its  convention  in  the  same  city,  with 
Preston  King,  ex-United  States  Senator  Henry  J.  Foster,2 
Lyman  Tremain,  Gerrit  Smith,  and  E.  G.  Spaulding  among 
the  notables  present.  A  procession  of  returned  soldiers  lent 
interest  to  the  occasion.  The  speakers  unequivocally  en 
dorsed  the  action  of  the  administration  in  the  Vallandig 
ham  case,  and  the  attitude  of  Governor  Seymour  in  that 
connection  was  freely  condemned.  Resolutions  similar  to 
those  of  the  Loyal  National  League  were  adopted  and  a 
committee  of  correspondence  appointed.3  A  few  days 
later,  the  Democratic  State  Committee  met  and  denounced 
the  loyal  leagues  with  great  severity,  comparing  their  un 
conditional  support  of  the  administration  to  that  given  by 
the  Tories  of  the  Revolution  to  the  King  of  England,  and 
further  charging  that  many  of  the  active  agents  in  getting 
up  the  Utica  meetings  were  "  influenced  by  pecuniary  and 
personal  interests  in  contracts,  offices  and  stocks." 

1  Herald,  May  27 ;  Tribune,  May  28. 

2  He  was  "  a  life  long  Democrat  "  (Albany  Evening  Journal,  May  28). 

3  Herald,  May  28. 

4  Resolutions  printed  in  the  Argus,  May  28. 


CHAPTER  XI 

COPPERHEADISM    IN    NEW    YORK 

DURING  the  early  months  of  1863,  the  peace  faction — 
until  then  very  weak  in  New  York  State — began  to  grow. 
The  rise  of  Copperheadism  here  was  marked  by  disloyal 
utterances  at  Democratic  mass-meetings  and  in  Democratic 
newspapers.  In  March  Vallandigham  addressed  a  rather 
sparsely  attended  gathering  in  New  York  City.  After  as 
sailing  the  recent  financial  and  military  legislation  of  Con 
gress  *  on  the  ground  that  it  gave  to  the  President  autocratic 
power  "  as  inexorable  in  its  character  as  that  of  the  worst 
despotism  of  the  Old  World,  of  ancient  or  modern  times," 
he  said :  "  When  an  attempt  is  made  to  deprive  us  of  free 
speech  and  a  free  press,  the  hour  shall  then  have  come  when 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  freemen  to  find  some  other  efficient 
mode  of  redress."  Important  consultations  of  Vallandig 
ham  and  other  Democratic  chiefs  with  Seymour  and  the 
Regency  leaders  in  Albany  followed.  Doubtless,  they  dis 
cussed  the  recent  acts  of  Congress,  and  the  attitude  which 
the  Democrats,  as  the  opposition  party,  should  take. 
Seymour  had,  as  we  have  seen,  condemned  the  national 
draft  while  yet  the  measure  providing  for  it  was  being  con 
sidered.  When  the  bill  passed  through  Congress,  the  Re 
gency  organ  severely  denounced  it.3  Furthermore,  the 

1  For  this  legislation,  see  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States, 
iv,  p.  236  et  seq. 

*  Herald,  Mar.  8;  Tribune,  Mar.  9. 
3  Argus,  Feb.  27,  28. 

503]  303 


304       NE^  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [504 

draft  and  the  three-hundred-dollar  exemption  clause  had 
been  scored  in  the  Democratic  legislative  address.  If, 
however,  violent  resistance  to  the  law  was  considered  at 
the  Albany  conference,  the  temperament  of  Seymour  and 
the  views  of  Dean  Richmond  were  sufficiently  averse  to 
such  a  course  to  prevent  its  adoption  by  the  party  in  this 
State.  Consequently  it  was  given  out  through  the  press 
that  the  policy  settled  upon  would  include  no  opposition  to 
a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war.1 

In  Fernando  Wood  and  his  organization,  the  Western 
Copperheads  had  more  sympathetic  brethren.  The  crisis 
in  the  affairs  of  the  nation,  which  had  roused  the  loyal 
masses  to  activity  and  had  given  rise  to  monster  war  meet 
ings,  had  a  different  effect  upon  the  politicians  of  Mozart 
Hall  and  their  followers.  Toward  the  end  of  March,  the 
Mozart  Hall  General  Committee  unanimously  passed  reso 
lutions  declaring  the 

conscription  bill  recently  passed  through  Congress,  and  which 
is  claimed  by  the  federal  government  to  be  a  law  .  .  .  grossly 
and  palpably  unconstitutional  in  its  provisions;  .  .  .  that  it  is 
subversive  of  the  rights  of  State  governments  and  designed  to 
make  them  mere  dependencies  and  provinces,  to  be  ruled  by 
military  satraps,  under  a  great,  consolidating,  usurping,  central 
despotism;  that  the  people  everywhere  should  be  awakened  to 
the  infamous  distinction  which  it  makes  between  rich  and 
poor,  whereby  the  former  is  allowed  to  buy  his  freedom  for 
the  sum  of  three  hundred  dollars,  while  the  latter,  unable  to 
command  that  sum,  is  to  be  torn  away  from  his  employment, 
his  home,  and  his  family,  and  forced  at  the  point  of  the  bay 
onet  into  the  ranks  of  the  army ;  that  we  call  upon  the  author 
ities  of  this  State,  in  view  of  the  intolerable  outrages  of  this 
conscription  law,  to  advise  the  Executive  of  the  United  States 

1  Tribune,  Mar.  1 1 ;  Herald,  Mar.  10. 


505]  COPPERHEADISM  IN  NEW  YORK  305 

against  the  enforcement  of  this  act  here,  until  its  constitutional 
ity  has  been  determined.  .  .  . 1 

At  this  meeting,  Fernando  Wood  declared  that  the  adop 
tion  of  resolutions  of  such  a  character  at  so  great  a  crisis  was 
a  significant  commentary  on  the  allegations,  based  upon  the 
action  of  a  few  "  recreant "  leaders,  that  the  Democratic 
party  of  New  York  had  changed  front.  He  further  said: 
"  We  are  for  making  men  in  power  conform  to  all  the  laws 
of  the  constitution  before  we  are  required  to  conform  to 
statutes  that  are  no  law  and  which  are  inconsistent  with 
the  constitution."  Referring  to  the  Loyal  Union  League, 
he  asserted  that  there  was  no  such  word  as  loyalty  in  a  re 
publican  dictionary.  "  Loyalty,"  he  said,  "  is  a  monarchi 
cal  derivative.  What  means  it?  The  King  can  do  no 
wrong.  No  loyalty  for  me."  He  too  contended  that  there 
were  in  the  land  only  two  parties,  but  his  classification  was 
different  from  that  of  the  Unionists.  According  to  Wood, 
there  was  first  the  party  for  the  government  right  or  wrong ; 
and  secondly,  the  party  against  it.  "  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  a  war  democrat,"  he  declared. 

There  cannot  be  war  democrats,  because  that  involves  the 
necessity  of  supporting  the  policy  of  the  war;  .  .  .  any  man 
who  supports  the  policy  of  this  administration  cannot  be  a 
democrat.  The  moment  democrats  endorse  the  policy  of  the 
administration,  they  at  once  drop  the  characteristics  of  the 
democratic  party  and  merge  into  the  abolition  party.2 

This  man,  who  as  a  representative  at  Washington  had 
played  the  double  role  of  publicly  opposing  and  privately 

1  These   resolutions    are   contained   in    full   in   a   letter   written   by 
Fernando   Wood   to   Hon.   Henry   Wilson,   published   in   the  Herald, 
April  3. 

2  Herald,  Mar.  25. 


306       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [506 

courting  the  administration,  shortly  before  delivering  the 
speech  quoted  above  wrote  to  Mr.  Lincoln  denying  that 
he  (Wood)  was  hostile  to  the  administration  and  in  sym 
pathy  with  the  South,  and  begging  the  President  "  to  rely 
upon  his  support  in  his  efforts  to  maintain  the  integrity  of 
the  Union."  x 

A  grand  mass-meeting,  arranged  by  Wood's  committee, 
took  place  on  the  7th  of  April.  The  call  invited,  among 
others,  all  "  opposed  to  the  conscript  act,  opposed  to  war  for 
the  negro,  .  .  .  [and]  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  the  poor."  2 
When  the  resolutions  were  read,  loud  applause  was  given 
to  the  declaration  "  that  the  war,  as  conducted  by  this  ad 
ministration,  has  been  a  failure;"  and  great  cheering  greeted 
another  resolution  that  said :  "  Under  these  circumstances, 
we  declare  for  peace.  This  administration  cannot  conquer 
the  South  if  they  would — and  would  not  if  they  could  .  .  . 
we  favor  peace  and  conciliation  as  the  only  mode  left  to  us 
to  restore  the  Union."  The  resolutions  further  called  upon 
the  judiciary  of  the  State  of  New  York  "  to  sustain  and 
vindicate  the  right  of  the  people  to  the  sacred  and  im 
prescriptible  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  to  preserve  the  free 
dom  of  speech  and  of  the  press;"  entreated  the  Republican 
majority  in  the  state  Legislature  not  to  sanction  the  estab 
lishment  of  scores  of  United  States  banks  and  "  the  plunder 
of  the  people  by  the  issue  of  hundreds  of  millions  more  of 
irredeemable  and  valueless  paper  money;"  and  denounced  the 
loyal  league  movement  as  a  "  base  invention  of  the  enemy." 
Fernando  Wood  was  the  principal  speaker.  He  asserted 
that  the  country  was  in  the  midst  of  two  revolutions : 

one  at  the  South,  with  the  sword,  and  the  other  at  the  North 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  vii,  pp.  365-6. 

2  Herald,  April  5- 


507]  COPPERHEADISM  IN  NEW  YORK  307 

by  executive  and  legislative  usurpations.  .  .  .  This  latter  enemy 
is  unfortunately  in  possession  of  the  government.  .  .  .  Taking 
advantage  of  the  popular  enthusiasm  in  behalf  of  the  Union,  it 
has,  under  the  pretext  of  furthering  this  holy  object,  gradually 
fastened  the  chains  of  slavery  upon  the  people. 

He  enumerated  eleven  classes  as  supporters  of  the  war. 
These  were :  first,  the  banking  interests ;  second,  New  Eng 
land,  which  having  lost  a  valuable  customer  in  the  South, 
found  a  profitable  substitute  in  army  contracts;  third,  the 
railroad  interests;  fourth,  the  debtor  class,  which  in  the 
"  intoxication  "  consequent  upon  the  inflation  caused  by  the 
war,  hoped  to  liquidate  their  debts ;  fifth,  the  "  abolition 
fanatics;"  sixth,  the  office-holders,  contractors,  and  govern 
ment  employees ;  seventh,  "  the  members  of  the  administra 
tion  themselves  who  hope  ...  to  perpetuate  their  author 
ity  for  another  term,  if  not  for  life ;"  eighth,  the  Republican 
partisans;  ninth,  the  War  Democrats,  whose  attitude  Wood 
attributed  to  the  base  desire  to  share  in  the  spoils;  tenth, 
"  some  honest  and  patriotic  men,  who  really  believe  that  by 
fighting  we  can  restore  the  Union ;"  and  eleventh,  the  army. 
"  Is  it  not  a  terrific  combination  to  confront?"  asked  Wood. 
A  Democratic  successor  of  Lincoln,  he  went  on,  if 

an  independent  man,  with  nerve  and  brain  and  the  principles 
of  peace  in  his  heart  .  .  .  would  restore  the  Union  without 
further  loss  of  blood,  if  such  a  blessing  were  within  the  range 
of  possibilities.  .  .  .  He  should  cease  hostilities  and  take  a  step 
towards  ascertaining  whether  a  conference  could  be  obtained. 
This  could  be  done  either  openly  and  officially,  or  privately 
and  unofficially,  .  .  .  What  shape  or  form  the  procedure  should 
assume  would  be  a  matter  of  argument  after  the  conference 
had  been  agreed  upon.1 

1  Herald,  April  8 ;  Tribune,  April  8. 


308       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [50$ 

Here  was  the  whole  peace  program  of  the  Chicago 
platform  of  1864  anticipated,  boldly  enunciated,  and  ad 
vocated.  It  is  after  reading  such  utterances  as  those  of 
Wood  that  one  sees  how  completely  the  action  of  the 
Democratic  National  Convention  was  a  victory  for  Wood 
and  his  Western  allies.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  Mozart 
chieftain  did  not  say  what  a  Democratic  president  would 
do  if  a  bloodless  restoration  of  the  Union  was  found  not  to 
be  "  within  the  range  of  possibilities."  But,  since  he  main 
tained  that  war  could  not  accomplish  the  desired  end,  the  in 
ference  was  plain,  despite  all  his  protestations  of  devotion 
to  the  Union,  that  the  alternative  to  a  successful  execution 
of  his  plan  was  separation. 

Such  was  the  situation  in  New  York  when  the  Vallandig- 
ham  affair  *  occurred  in  Ohio.  The  seizure,  incarceration, 
and  sentence  of  so  prominent  a  leader  stirred  the  Demo 
crats  once  more  to  angry  denunciations.  Even  adminis 
tration  newspapers  in  New  York  disapproved  or  deplored 
the  action  of  the  officials  concerned,  the  Evening  Post — a 
staunch  supporter  of  the  government — going  so  far  as  to  ask 
whether,  if  Vallandigham's  peace  nonsense  was  treasonable, 
Greeley's  might  not  be  equally  so.2  The  Democrats  gath 
ered  in  mass-meetings  to  express  their  indignation,  cheer 
every  mention  of  Vallandigham's  name,  and  give  evidences 
of  their  sympathy  for  the  martyr.  Of  these  demonstra 
tions,  those  at  Albany,  New  York  City,  Buffalo,  and  Brook 
lyn  deserve  mention.8 

lFor  the  Vallandigham  affair,  see  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United 
iv,  p.  247  et  seq. 

8  New  York  Evening  Post,  May  14. 

s  Besides  these,  I  have  found  in  the  Argus  notices  of  meetings  of 
protest  at  Syracuse,  Rome,  Utica,  Troy,  Waterloo,  in  Schoharie  County, 
and  in  Dutchess  County.  So  far  as  the  resolutions  were  published, 
they  were  not  of  a  Copperhead  character  but  approved  Seymour's  letter. 


509]  COPPERHEADISM  IN  NEW  YORK  309 

The  Albany  meeting  on  the  i6th  of  May  was  presided 
over  by  Erastus  Corning;  Amasa  J.  Parker  and  Repre 
sentative  Francis  Kernan  made  addresses;  and  Governor 
Seymour  sent  a  letter.  It  is  noteworthy  that  both  Parker 
and  Kernan  warned  their  hearers  against  violence.  Neither 
did  they  or  any  of  the  resolutions  undertake  to  defend 
Vallandigham's  principles.1  The  Governor  sounded  a  bold 
note.  He  pronounced  the  arrest  of  Vallandigham  an  act 
which  dishonored  the  country,  an  exercise  of  power  danger 
ous  to  the  persons  and  homes  of  his  listeners,  and  a  con 
scious  violation  of  law  and  justice.  "  If  this  proceeding," 
he  wrote,  "  is  approved  by  the  government  and  sanctioned 
by  the  people,  it  is  not  merely  a  step  towards  revolution — 
it  is  revolution.  It  will  not  only  lead  to  military  despotism 
— it  establishes  military  despotism."  The  people  awaited 
with  the  deepest  anxiety  the  administration's  decision  in  the 
matter.  "  We  pause  to  see,"  he  went  on, 

what  kind  of  government  it  is  for  which  we  are  asked  to  pour 
out  our  blood  and  our  treasure.  The  action  of  the  administra 
tion  will  determine  in  the  minds  of  more  than  one-half  of  the 
people  of  the  loyal  States  whether  this  war  is  waged  to  put 
down  rebellion  at  the  South  or  to  destroy  free  institutions  at 
the  North.2 

This  letter  met  with  general  commendation  in  anti-adminis 
tration  circles,  while  the  supporters  of  the  government  con 
demned  the  document  warmly,  the  Tribune  speaking  of  it 
as  "  full  of  provocation  to  lawlessness,  riot  and  devasta 
tion."  8 

1  Argus,  May  18. 

2  Printed  in  the  Herald,  May  19. 

3  Tribune,  May  18. 


3io       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [510 

The  meeting  further  transmitted  a  series  of  resolutions 
to  Lincoln,  requesting  his  earnest  consideration  of  them.1 
These  resolutions,  after  pointing  to  the  alacrity  with  which 
Democrats  of  New  York  had  filled  the  ranks  of  the  army 
and  supported  the  war,  and  after  reiterating  their  determin 
ation  to  continue  in  this  patriotic  course  and  "  to  devote  all 
.  .  .  [their]  .  .  .  energies  to  sustain  [ing]  the  cause  of  the 
Union  to  secure  peace  through  victory,"  demanded  that 
the  administration  be  true  to  the  constitution,  recognize  and 
maintain  the  rights  of  the  states  and  the  liberties  of  the 
citizen,  and  outside  of  the  lines  of  necessary  military  occu 
pation  uphold  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  over  martial  law. 
They  denounced  the  arrest  of  Vallandigham  and  the  action 
of  the  military  tribunal.  Such  proceedings,  they  declared, 
not  only  abrogated  the  right  of  the  people  to  assemble  and 
discuss  the  affairs  of  the  government,  liberty  of  speech  and 
of  the  press,  trial  by  jury,  the  law  of  evidence,  and  the 
privilege  of  habeas  corpus,  but  also  struck  a  fatal  blow  at 
the  supremacy  of  the  law  and  of  the  state  and  federal  consti 
tutions.  While  aiming  to  be  courteous  and  temperate  in 
discussing  public  measures  and  men,  they  would  when  the 
right  itself  was  questioned  "bid  defiance  to  any  arm  that 
would  move  "  them  from  their  ground.  The  first  two  of 
these  resolutions  are  worthy  of  note  because  they  show  that 
the  Regency  leaders  still  wished  to  be  considered  War 
Democrats. 

The  Buffalo  meeting  gave  a  hearty  approval  to  Seymour's 
letter  and  adopted  the  same  resolutions  as  the  Albany 
meeting.2  The  tone  of  the  speakers  was  not  that  of  the 

1  The  letter  of  transmission  together  with  the  resolutions  are  printed 
in  the  Herald,  June  15.  For  the  subsequent  correspondence  between 
Lincoln  and  the  committee,  see  Argus,  July  4. 

9  Argus,  June  4. 


5 1 1  ]  COPPERHEADISM  IN  NEW  YORK  3 1 1 

Copperheads.  Said  one :  "  We  stand  .  .  .  where  we  have 
always  stood,  ready  at  all  times  to  furnish  men  and  money 
to  put  down  the  rebellion,  .  .  .  '  Congressman  John 
Ganson  declared : 

You  are  not  here  to  manifest  sympathy  for  any  individual,  nor 
to  approve  of  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Vallandigham,  or  to  en 
dorse  his  action.  You  are  here,  however,  to  avow  your  decided 
disapproval  of  the  manner  of  his  "  taking  off."  .  .  .  We  are  in 
favor  of  furnishing  those  in  authority  the  men  and  means 
necessary  for  the  prosecution  of  the  pending  war,  until  the 
armed  force  of  the  rebellion  is  broken,  and  till  those  who  are 
engaged  in  it  sue  for  peace.  We  .  .  .  continue  to  give  a  cheer 
ful  and  cordial  support  to  all  proper  efforts  of  the  Administra 
tion  to  uphold  the  Constitution  and  enforce  the  laws  on  every 
foot  of  our  soil. 

This  speech  was  reported  to  have  been  received  with  en 
thusiastic  applause.1  Sanford  E.  Church,  former  lieutenant- 
governor  and  later  chief  justice  of  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
uttered  similar  sentiments,2  and  so  did  those  who  spoke  at 
the  Brooklyn  meeting  on  June  nth.8 

Far  different  was  the  spirit  of  the  great  demonstration 
at  Union  Square  in  New  York  City.  It  was  noticeable 
that  here,  the  prominent  Democrats  of  the  City  were  not 
among  the  numerous  speakers.  Those  who  addressed  the 
gathering,  however,  made  up  for  their  comparative  obscur 
ity  by  the  revolutionary  character  of  their  talk.  Not  only 
were  the  administration  and  its  measures — especially  eman 
cipation — attacked  in  the  most  violent  terms;  not  only  was 
every  mention  of  Lincoln  greeted  with  groans;  not  only 
were  the  sentiments  of  Vallandigham  repeatedly  endorsed 

1  Argus,  June  5.  2  Argus,  June  5. 

3  Herald,  June  12;  Argus,  June  15. 


312       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [512 

by  the  speakers  and  applauded  by  the  crowd ;  but  the  most 
disloyal  exhortations  were  received  with  cheering.  Eli  P. 
Norton,  for  instance,  said: 

If  an  issue  were  to  come  between  the  federal  authorities  and 
the  law,  he  wished  to  stand  by  the  law,  to  stand  where  the 
Governor  of  New  York,  his  commander-in-chief  .  .  .  stood. 
.  .  .  There  might  soon  be  a  time  when  the  people  of  the  State 
of  New  York  would  be  called  upon  to  defend  their  rights. 

J.  A.  McMasters,  the  editor  of  the  disloyal  Freeman's 
Journal  and  an  ex-inmate  of  Fort  Lafayette,  went  still 
further.  The  time  for  deliberation,  he  said,  had  gone, 
and  the  time  for  action  had  come. 

So  far  as  he  knew  or  had  read  of  Mr.  Vallandigham,  he  re 
spected  and  loved  him  for  his  virtues,  and  he  knew  of  no  man 
living  with  whose  sentiments  he  more  cordially  agreed  .  .  . 
Vallandigham  knew,  as  he  knew,  that  there  was  but  one  way 
of  bringing  back  the  Union,  and  that  was  to  stop  this  accursed 
war  (cheers)  .  .  .  Vallandigham  had  called  for  peace  in  order 
to  try  the  last  hope  of  restoring  the  Union.  It  had  been  tried 
by  a  war  in  violation  of  the  constitution  and  it  had  failed  and 
always  would  fail  ...  the  South  never  could  be  conquered 
(cheers).  .  .  .  Under  their  gallant  Governor  Seymour,  the 
four  millions  of  New  York  would  be  able  to  guard  and  keep 
their  State  against  the  world;  and  could  it  be  believed  that 
eight  millions  of  people  in  the  South,  as  brave  and  resolute, 
could  be  defeated  ? 

'  The  question  at  issue  now  was,  not  the  independence  of  the 
South  but  the  liberty  of  the  people  of  the  North.  How 
could  that  be  maintained?  "By  fighting,"  McMasters  an 
swered, 

but   not   by   street   fighting,   not   by   disorganized   opposition. 


513]  COPPERHEADISM  IN  NEW  YORK  313 

They  should  organize  by  tens  and  hundreds,  by  companies  and 
regiments,  and  they  should  send  to  their  Governor  and  ask 
him  for  commissions  as  soon  as  they  had  their  regiments  formed 
(cheers).  .  .  .  They  should  keep  their  arms,  and  if  they  had 
not  them,  they  should  get  them,  and  be  ready,  under  their  gal 
lant  Governor,  to  defend  the  liberties  of  their  State  (cheers). 

<** 

Judge  McCunn,  one  of  the  prominent  men  in  Mozart 
Hall,  thanked  God  that  New  York  had  a  Governor  who 
would  not  let  the  people  be  deprived  of  their  liberties  with 
out  his  solemn  protest.  There  was  but  one  course  for 
freemen,  he  said,  —  liberty  or  death.  Another  speaker, 
Edmund  Blankman,  reminded 

the  George  III  of  the  present  day  that  he  too  may  have  his 
Cromwell  or  his  Brutus  (cheers).  The  mechanic  who  had  not 
three  hundred  dollars  in  his  pocket  would  have  to  go  to  the 
war,  but  that  mechanic's  employer,  who  had  three  hundred 
dollars  .  .  .  would  not  have  to  go.  ...  They  all  said  "  no," 
but  just  let  them  wait  till  .  .  .  July  came,  and  then  the  provost 
marshals  commenced  their  work. 

Mr.  John  Mullaly  declared  that 

while  we  had  such  a  Governor  as  Horatio  Seymour,  .  .  .  there 
was  not  a  man  there  need  be  afraid  of  being  carried  off  as 
Vallandigham  had  been  .  .  .  there  was  one  State  out  of  which 
Vallandigham  could  not  have  been  taken,  except  over  the  bodies 
of  thousands  of  armed  citizens  (great  applause).  .  .  .  Gover 
nor  Seymour  knew  the  spirit  of  the  people  of  the  Empire  State 
when  he  wrote  the  letter  to  the  Albany  meeting  and  .  .  .  that 
the  people  would  stand  by  him,  with  guns  and  bayonets  in  their 
hands,  at  all  hazards. 

Then  the  speaker  inquired  where  the  laborer  would  get 
three  hundred  dollars  and  whether  he  would  consent  to  be 


314       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [514 

drafted.  The  conscription  act  would  never  be  carried  out 
in  the  State  of  New  York.  He  also  declared  that  we  "  had 
fought  enough  with  our  fellow-countrymen  of  the  South/' 
Daniel  C.  Birdsall  said : 

They  seized  Vallandigham  at  night  because  they  loved  dark 
ness  more  than  light,  for  their  deeds  were  evil.  Such  things 
must  not  happen  in  New  York.  For  if  such  things  were  done, 
they  would  rise  as  one  man,  and  rescue  .  .  .  [the  one  seized] 
from  the  grasp  of  power.  .  .  .  He  would  not  ask  them  to  take 
up  arms  against  the  Conscript  law  now,  but  a  time  may  come 
when  their  rights  must  be  asserted. 

Another  speaker  asked:  "Are  we  prepared  to  rally  round 
Governor  Seymour  as  a  posse  comitatus  to  carry  out  the 
laws?  Seymour  is  slow  but  he  is  sure.  .  .  .  We  may  yet 
have  to  shed  our  blood  in  the  streets  for  the  maintainence 
of  our  liberties." 

The  resolutions  adopted  denounced  the  arrest  of  Val 
landigham  as  "  a  startling  outrage  upon  the  hitherto  sacred 
rights  of  American  citizenship/'  expressed  attachment  for 
the  Union — incendiary  revolutionists  of  a  copper  hue  gen 
erally  did  that— endorsed  Governor  Seymour's  letter  to  the 
Albany  meeting,  called  upon  "  the  Governor  of  the  State 
of  New  York  and  all  others  in  authority  ...  to  save  us 
from  the  humiliation  and  peril  of  ...  arrest  and  trial 
before  military  commission,"  and  promised  to  do  all  in  the 
power  of  those  present  to  sustain  Seymour  "  in  his  deter 
mination  to  preserve  inviolate  the  sovereignty  of  our  State 
and  the  rights  of  its  people  against  federal  encroachments 
and  usurpations."1  The  New  York  Herald  truly  re 
marked  that  all  that  Vallandigham  had  ever  uttered  was 
cast  into  the  shade  by  the  speeches  at  this  meeting,  and 

1  Herald,  May  19 ;  Tribune,  May  20. 


515]  COPPERHEADISM  IN  NE  W  YORK  3 1 5 

that  if  Secretary  Stanton  intended  to  carry  out  the  prin 
ciple  on  which  the  Vallandigham  arrest  was  based,  he 
would  have  plenty  to  do  thereafter.1  There  can  be  little 
doubt  of  the  connection  between  this  incident  in  New 
York's  political  history  and  the  draft  riot  of  the  following 
July.  The  worst  elements  of  the  City's  population  had 
been  aroused. 

The  Copperhead  demonstrations  occasioned  by  the  Val 
landigham  affair  had  another  significance.  It  marked  a 
renewal  of  the  struggle  within  the  Democratic  ranks  in 
New  York  State  between  Fernando  Wood  and  the  Regency. 
The  speeches  and  resolutions  of  the  New  York  City  meet 
ing  compared  with  those  of  the  Albany  or  Buffalo  meetings 
showed  the  difference  between  the  factions.  While  Wood 
and  his  followers  came  out  for  peace,  the  Regency  and  their 
adherents  declared  themselves  still  in  favor  of  a  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  war  for  constitutional  ends.  The  Re 
gency  press  contrasted  the  recent  defeat  of  the  Democrats 
on  Copperhead  platforms  in  Connecticut,  New  Hampshire 
and  Rhode  Island  with  the  Democratic  victories  on  a  war 
platform  in  the  middle  states  in  1862.  "  The  result  of 
departing  from  the  New  York  standard,"  said  the  New 
York  Atlas,  an  offshoot  of  the  Albany  organ  of  the  Re 
gency,  "  was  a  signal  defeat  of  the  democracy  in  those 
States  [i.  e.  New  England].  .  .  The  '  copperhead  '  experi 
ment  was  an  egregious  blunder.  .  .  ."  If  New  York  was 
to  be  carried  at  the  coming  presidential  election,  the  article 
went  on,  the  Democracy  must  not  stand  upon  the  anti-war 
plank  of  Vallandigham.  And  it  proposed  for  the  presiden 
tial  nomination  in  1864  Horatio  Seymour  as  the  favorite 
candidate  of  the  conservative  men  of  the  nation.2 

1  Herald,  May  22. 

2  New  York  Atlas,  May  4,  quoted  in  the  Herald,  May  26. 


316       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee,  which 
was  controlled  by  the  Regency,  resolutions  were  unani 
mously  adopted  which  declared  a  lack  of  confidence  in 
the  administration's  ability  to  bring  about  a  peace  bene 
ficial  to  the  whole  Union,  and  endorsed  Seymour's  Albany 
letter.  Yet  they  reaffirmed  the  resolutions  of  the  preceding 
Democratic  State  Convention  that  the  Democrats  would 
continue  to  sustain  the  government  "  in  the  use  of  all  legiti 
mate  means  to  suppress  the  rebellion  and  to  restore  the 
Union  as  it  was  and  maintain  the  Constitution  as  it  is." 
While  they  earnestly  desired  a  cessation  of  the  war,  the 
committee's  resolutions  protested  against  negotiations  with 
the  South  by  the  administration  except  on  the  basis  of  the 
preservation  of  the  Union,  and  they  expressed  disapproval 
of  the  peace  movement  on  the  ground  that  those  in  power 
might  use  such  agitation  as  a  pretext  for  concluding  a  dis 
honorable  treaty.1  Tammany  ranged  itself  beside  the  Re 
gency.  The  Wigwam  prided  itself  upon  its  patriotic  record, 
and  therefore  could  not  afford  to  endorse  the  peace  idea, 
even  if  that  program  had  not  had  as  its  foremost  advocate 
Tammany's  bitter  rival.  Accordingly,  at  a  meeting  on 
June  4th,  the  Tammany  General  Committee  unanimously 
passed  resolutions  similar  to  those  of  the  Democratic  State 
Committee.2 

Meanwhile  Wood  was  spreading  his  agitation  through 
the  State.3  About  the  same  time  the  Daily  News  was 
revived  as  the  organ  of  the  Copperheads.  Not  long  after 
the  defeat  at  Chancellorsville,  a  call  for  a  mass  state 

1  Resolutions  printed  in  the  Argus,  May  28. 

2  Advertisement  of  Tammany  Hall,  printed  in  the  Herald,  June  6. 

3 "  Wood  has  been  sending  circulars  into  every  county  of  the  State 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  up  a  State  mass  meeting  ..."  (Albany 
dispatch  in  the  Herald,  April  15). 


517]  COPPERHEADISM  IN  NEW  YORK  317 

convention  for  "  Peace  and  Reunion  "  was  issued,  signed 
by  two  persons  from  each  senatorial  district,  the  most 
prominent  being  Wood  and  his  immediate  followers  of 
Mozart  Hall.  The  signers  declared  that  they  loved  the 
Union  and  would  never  willingly  relinquish  it,  but  that  they 
believed  that  the  efforts  to  maintain  it  by  arms  had  proved 
a  failure  and  that  the  administration  could  not  restore  it 
by  brute  force.  They  favored  a  vigorous  prosecution  of 
peace.  While  they  would  "  submit  to  no  national  dismem 
berment  and  no  terms  not  justified  by  every  principle  of 
honor,"  they  would  "  go  very  far  in  the  spirit  of  con 
ciliation  and  concession  to  restore  the  Union."  They  there 
fore  summoned  those  holding  like  views  to  meet  in  New 
York  City  on  the  3rd  of  June,  to  take  measures  for  a 
speedy  settlement  of  the  war.1 

The  convention  took  place  on  the  appointed  date. 
Cooper  Institute  and  the  surrounding  streets  were  jammed, 
the  Herald  estimating  the  crowd  at  thirty  thousand.2  Ap 
prehension  of  bloodshed  as  a  result  of  the  demonstration  3 
proved  groundless;  for  no  attempt  was  made  to  interfere 
with  the  utmost  license  of  speech  against  the  national  gov 
ernment.  The  assemblage  was  enthusiastic  and  cheered  for 
peace,  Wood,  Seymour,  McClellan,  Governor  Parker  of 
New  Jersey,  and  especially  for  Vallandigham.  At  the  head 
of  the  committee  on  the  address  and  the  resolutions  was 
Wood,4  and  he  delivered  himself  in  full.  The  address  de 
clared  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  states  was  the  corner 
stone  of  the  Democracy;  argued  that  the  general  govern 
ment  could  not  coerce  states;  that  even  if  it  had  such  a 

1  Printed  in  the  Herald,  May  14. 

2  Herald,  June  4. 

3  Herald,  June  i,  4. 

4  Herald,  May  21. 


318       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

power,  the  exercise  thereof  was  inconsistent  with  union; 
and  that  the  Democratic  party  could  not  sustain  such  a  war. 
Attacking  the  Regency  leaders  without  naming  them,  the 
address  said: 

The  professed  democrat  .  .  .  who  is  deliberately  for  the  war, 
is  not  a  democrat  in  fact,  but  an  abolitionist  of  the  most  rad 
ical,  violent  and  destructive  kind.  .  .  .  The  war  is  the  curse 
of  the  age  in  which  we  live,  .  .  .  The  continuance  of  the  war 
will  be  fatal  to  our  liberties.  .  .  .  The  only  road  to  democratic 
victory  is  through  peace.  Why  should  politicians  fear  that  a 
peace  party  may  prove  unpopular?  If  the  war  has  damned 
the  republican  party,  is  it  not  logical  to  suppose  that  a  peace 
policy  might  prosper  the  opposition?  But  this  matter  is  be 
yond  the  control  of  the  politicians.  The  great  body  of  the 
people  are  tired  of  the  war  and  demand  peace.  .  .  .  the  war 
cannot  succeed.  We  have  been  beaten.  We  cannot  conquer 
the  South.  ...  In  this  connection  we  must  refer  to  the  ludi 
crous  attempts  that  are  made  upon  every  military  reverse 
to  attribute  the  result  to  every  other  than  the  true  cause. 
When  a  battle  is  fought  it  is  generally  lost,  and  then  come  the 
reasons.  .  .  .  We  never  hear  the  truth. 

And  the  position  taken  by  the  Democratic  members  of  the 
Legislature  in  declaring  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war 
according  to  the  constitution,  was  assailed  as  illogical. 
The  belief  was  expressed  that  all  love  for  the  Union  had 
not  been  "  obliterated  from  the  Southern  heart,"  and  that 
the  call  for  peace  would  find  a  response.1 

The  resolutions  reiterated  briefly  the  sentiments  of  the 
address  and  protested  "  against  the  cowardly,  despotic,  in 
human  and  accursed  act  which  has  consigned  to  banishment 
the  noble  tribune  of  the  people — the  Honorable  Clement  L. 
Vallandigham."  Moreover,  they  recommended  the  suspen- 

1  Printed  in  the  Herald,  June  4. 


519]  COPPERHEADISM  IN  NEW  YORK  319 

sion  of  hostilities  and  the  holding  of  two  conventions — 
one  of  the  Confederate  states  and  the  other  of  the  states 
still  in  the  Union — to  settle  the  manner  of  reconciliation. 
A  state  committee  with  authority  to  call  any  future  conven 
tions  of  the  peace  Democracy  was  appointed.  At  the  same 
time  they  disclaimed  any  intention  of  distracting  the  Demo 
cratic  organization  of  New  York.  Letters  from  distin 
guished  peace  advocates  of  other  states,  including  ex- 
Governor  Thomas  H.  Seymour  of  Connecticut,  James  W. 
Wall  of  New  Jersey,  and  George  H.  Pendleton  of  Ohio, 
were  then  read.  The  principal  speaker  was,  of  course, 
Fernando  Wood;  while  among  the  lesser  attractions  were 
George  Francis  Train,  two  former  martyrs  in  Fort  Lafay 
ette,  and  some  of  those  who  had  spoken  at  the  Vallandig- 
ham  meeting.  The  leading  men  of  the  party  were  again 
conspicuous  by  their  absence.  The  speeches  were  a  mix 
ture  of  denunciation  of  the  war,  disrespectful  attacks  upon 
the  President  and  upon  the  measures  of  the  administration, 
incitement  to  resist  violently  any  encroachment  upon  the 
liberties  of  the  people,  and  thinly  veiled  hints  of  forcible 
opposition  to  the  impending  draft.1  Thus,  in  the  discon 
tent  of  a  certain  element,  Wood  found  a  club  to  use  against 
Tammany  and  the  Regency.2 

1  Herald,  June  4 ;  Tribune,  June  4. 

2  The  Daily  News  openly  threatened  that  unless  "  Cagger,  Richmond 
&  Go's  State  Convention  distinctly  adopt  the  platform  of  Peace,"  the 
committee  appointed  in  New  York  City  on  the  3rd  of  June  would  call 
a  separate  state  convention  (quoted  by  the  Argus,  June  9). 


CHAPTER  XII 
SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL 

WITH  the  invasion  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  bringing  of 
the  war  nearer  to  New  York,  the  peace  advocates  received 
a  setback.1  To  his  credit,  Governor  Seymour  responded 
promptly  to  the  telegram  from  Washington  calling  for 
twenty  thousand  militia  to  help  repel  Lee.2  The  withdrawal 
of  the  militia  from  New  York  City  was  followed  by  the 
Draft  Riot  on  the  I3th  of  July  and  the  succeeding  days. 
The  direct  connection  of  this  outbreak  with  the  denuncia 
tions  of  the  so-called  conscription  act 3  by  Democratic  lead 
ers,  including  Seymour  himself,  and  with  the  revolutionary 
remarks  at  the  peace  demonstrations  engineered  by  Fer 
nando  Wood,  is  apparent.  The  mischief  of  those  seditious 
speeches  had  borne  fruit.  Seymour's  actions  during  the 
disturbance  and  his  correspondence  with  the  Washington 
authorities  in  regard  to  the  draft  became  later  a  subject  of 
political  controversy.  The  drafting  in  New  York  City 
began  on  a  Saturday;  on  Monday  the  mob  broke  out  into 
violence;  and  on  Tuesday  Seymour,  who  had  been  at  Long 

1  Herald,  June  18,  for  effect  of  the  invasion  upon  the  peace  movement. 

2  Herald,  June  16. 

3  The  correct  title  of  the  law  authorizing  the  draft  was :  "An  act  for 
enrolling  and  calling  out  the  national   forces."     Dix  objected  to  the 
Democratic   habit  of   speaking  of   the   draft   as   a   conscription;   but 
as  Fry,  the  provost  marshal  general,  and  other  administration  supporters 
used   the  term,    it    is    adopted    here   as    a   less    cumbersome    designa 
tion  of  the  law  than  the  real  title. 

320  [520 


52 1  ]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  321 

Branch,  New  Jersey,  arrived  on  the  scene.  He  found  wide 
spread  consternation.  The  radicals  wanted  energetic  repres 
sion.  The  leaders  of  Mozart  Hall,  it  was  said,  urged  the 
Governor  to  make  a  stand  for  the  State  against  the  national 
government.1  Seymour  at  once  assumed  command,  and 
did,  according  to  his  light,  what  he  could  to  reestablish 
order. 

He  followed,  however,  the  method  of  conciliation  rather 
than  that  of  repression,  urging  the  rioters  to  cease  their  un 
lawful  actions.  He  issued  two  proclamations.2  One  re 
minded  those  who  had  resorted  to  violence  "  under  an  appre 
hension  of  injustice  "  that  the  only  permissible  opposition  to 
the  draft  was  an  appeal  to  the  courts.  "  Riotous  proceed 
ings,"  he  proclaimed,  "  must  and  shall  be  put  down.  The 
laws  of  the  State  of  New  York  must  be  enforced,  its  peace 
and  order  maintained,  and  the  lives  and  property  of  all  its 
citizens  protected  at  any  and  every  hazard."  And  the  Gover 
nor  threatened  that  unless  the  rioters  retired  to  their  homes 
and  employments,  he  would  use  all  the  power  necessary  to 
restore  tranquillity  to  the  City.  The  second  proclamation 
declared  the  City  to  be  in  a  state  of  insurrection — an  act 
of  wisdom,  since  it  permitted  the  complete  and  legal  use  of 
the  military,  the  only  power  capable  of  suppressing  the  dis 
turbance.  Of  course,  the  Unionist  press  did  not  fail  to 
point  out  that  the  Governor  had  not  announced  that  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  must  and  would  be  enforced.  Ap 
pended  to  one  of  the  proclamations  was  a  request  that  loyal 
citizens  should  enroll  at  designated  places  to  aid  in  preserv 
ing  peace.  This  idea  was  carried  out. 

In  the  City  Hall  Park,  the  Governor  addressed  an  excited 
crowd,  composed  in  part  of  riotous  elements,  as  "  my 

1  Herald,  July  24,  28. 

2  Printed  in  the  Tribune,  July  15. 


322       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [522 

friends;"  and  this  rather  harmless  method  of  gaining  the 
good-will  of  the  mob  was  seized  upon  by  the  radical  press, 
interpreted  in  the  most  literal  sense,  and  for  months  made 
the  basis  for  such  assertions  as  that  "  the  State  authorities, 
in  the  person  of  Governor  Seymour,  assumed  the  leadership 
of  the  riot  at  first."  1  In  truth,  the  weakness  of  the  military 
forces  at  hand  justified  temporizing  until  reinforcements  ar 
rived.  But  if  these  words  of  salutation  did  not  make  Sey 
mour  the  traitorous  governor  that  some  of  the  newspapers 
described,  his  sympathetic  attitude  toward  the  alleged  griev 
ances  of  the  rioters  deserves  condemnation.  It  appears  very 
probable  that  the  Governor's  mildness  did  little  good.2  His 
course  was  perfectly  consistent  with  his  character;  by  no 
means  disloyal,  but  showing  gentleness  where  vigor  and 
determination  were  requisite;  censuring  unlawful  deeds, 
but  haggling  over  constitutional  rights  at  a  most  inoppor 
tune  time.  The  radicals  later  accused  the  Governor  of  hav 
ing  purposely  denuded  the  City  of  militia  so  as  to  give  an 
opportunity  for  the  riot  which  in  turn  was  to  lead  to  revolu 
tion,  and  of  having  backed  down  when  the  moment  to  strike 
came.3  Lincoln  received  letters  setting  forth  this  theory  of 
a  Democratic  conspiracy  and  implicating  Seymour.  But 
Lincoln  did  not  believe  the  absurd  story,  and  his  biogra 
phers  admit  that  there  was  in  fact  no  foundation  for  it.4 

1  Tribune,  July  18. 

2  Seymour  in  his  annual  message  of  1864  said :  "  On  the  third  day 
it  [the  riot]  became  one  of  the  most  destructive  riots  ever  known  in 
the  history  of  our  country.  .  .  .  The  return  of  some  of  the  New  York 
militia  regiments  secured  peace  to  the  city"  (Lincoln's  Messages  from 
the  Governors,  v,  pp.  547,  549)- 

3  E.  g.   Tribune,  July    18,  24,   Aug.  29;   Independent,  quoted  by  the 
Argus,  July  25. 

4  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  vii,  p.  26. 


523]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  323 

Such  a  course  was  irreconcilable  with  Seymour's  disposi 
tion  and  official  actions. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  radical  press  was  accused  of  foment 
ing  an  incendiary  condition  of  affairs  to  increase  the  disturb 
ance  and  by  forcing  a  collision  between  the  state  and  federal 
authorities  to  procure  a  declaration  of  marital  law  and  a  mili 
tary  governor  who  would  control  future  elections.1  Imme 
diately  after  the  outbreak  of  the  riot,  the  metropolitan  press 
became  engaged  in  a  controversy  as  to  who  had  provoked 
the  affair.  The  Tribune,  the  Times,  and  the  Post  were 
arrayed  against  the  World,  the  News,  and  the  Express, 
while  the  Herald  berated  both  sides.  The  administration 
papers  rightly  attributed  blame  for  the  riot  to  the  Copper 
heads,  and  also  accused  the  Democratic  papers  of  encour 
aging  the  rioters.2  The  World  retorted :  "  We  charge  it, 
therefore,  plainly  against  the  radical  journals  of  this  city 
that  they,  and  chiefly  they,  have  educated  the  people  of  New 
York  to  the  pitch  of  passion  and  the  extremes  of  desperate 
feeling  which  have  gleamed  out  so  luridly  ...  in  these  last 
sad  days."  3  In  the  very  midst  of  the  riot,  the  World  and 
the  News  assailed  the  conscription  act  and  its  execution.4 
The  more  moderate  of  these,  the  World,  said  of  the  law: 
"A  measure  which  could  not  have  been  ventured  upon  in 
England  even  in  those  dark  days  when  the  press-gang  filled 
the  English  ships  of  war  with  slaves  .  .  .  was  thrust  into 
the  statute  book  as  one  might  say  almost  by  force." 

With  the  exception  of  a  small  outbreak  at  Troy,  good  or 
der  prevailed  up  the  State  during  the  drafting.5     In  some 

1  Argus,  July  25 ;  Herald,  July  28. 

2  Editorials  quoted  in  the  Herald,  July  16. 

3  New  York  World,  July  15. 

4  New  York  World,  July  13;  New  York  News,  quoted  in  the  Tribune, 
July  15. 

5  Tribune,  July  17;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  July  16.     The  letters  of 


324       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [524 

cases,  those  upon  whom  the  lot  fell  paraded  the  streets  and 
cheered  for  the  Union. 

The  riot  suppressed  and  General  Dix  in  command  at  New 
York  City,  the  question  whether  the  draft  would  be  en 
forced  became  all  engrossing.  The  disloyal  journals  kept 
demanding  that  the  law  should  not  be  executed  and  that 
Seymour  should  redeem  his  promises.  The  Express  de 
clared  that  the  Governor  was  pledged  to  call  forth  the 
entire  militia  of  the  State  to  resist  the  kidnaping  of  its 
citizens.1  The  News  endorsed  this,  saying:  "Governor 
Seymour  has  pledged  his  sacred  word  and  honor,  .  .  . 
that  not  one  single  drafted  citizen  shall  be  forced  away  from 
the  State  until  the  constitutionality  of  the  Conscription  Act 
shall  have  been  decided  upon  by  our  Courts."  2  Again  it 
said: 

.  .  .  the  masses  must  rely  upon  themselves  and  their  State 
magistrates  for  protection.  While  the  Judiciary  remains  firm 
and  honest,  and  the  Gubernatorial  authority  sustains  the  Judi 
ciary,  the  500,000  bayonets  of  despotism  will  not  prevail.  But 
there  must  be  no  wild  exhibitions  of  passion,  no  rioting,  no 
wasting  of  precious  strength.  Opposition  to  central  tyranny 
will  be  most  effective  when  conducted  according  to  legal 
formula,  and  under  the  direction  of  the  constituted  State 
authorities.  .  .  .  There  is  ample  provision  in  our  Constitu 
tion  and  our  Statutes  to  clothe  with  legality  resistance  to  op 
pression.  If  Governor  Seymour  will  use  the  powers  where 
with  he  is  invested,  they  will  be  found  sufficient  for  either 
moral  or  physical  protection  of  State  Government  and  indi- 

the  provost  marshals  (Official  Records,  ser.  iii,  vol.  iii,  pp.  516,  £28),  speak 
of  opposition  in  Albany  and  Utica;  yet  the  Albany  Evening  Journal 
(July  20)  said  that  Albany  had  seldom  been  more  quiet  and  orderly 
than  during  that  week  and  that  there  were  no  signs  of  disturbance. 

1  New  York  Express,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  7. 

1  New  York  News,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  7. 


525]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  325 

vidual  liberty.  The  only  danger  then  exists  in  a  possible  weak 
ness  and  infirmity  of  purpose  in  our  Governor.1 

The  Metropolitan  Record  published  a  still  more  inflamma 
tory  article  entitled,  "  What  the  People  of  New  York  Ex 
pect  of  Governor  Seymour."  2  The  World  used  a  very  thin 
disguise,  saying: 

It  is  now  at  length  evident  to  all  but  the  wilfully  blind,  that 
the  rescue  of  the  constitution  from  the  hands  of  its  official  vio 
lators  requires  a  vigorous  and  determined  struggle.  The  pre 
cise  measures  to  be  adopted  for  this  purpose  must  depend,  in 
part,  upon  future  contingencies;  and  there  is  needed  the 
greatest  wisdom  and  caution,  as  well  as  pluck  and  resolution, 
that  the  effort  may  not  miscarry  by  irretrievable  false  steps 
and  precipitate  action.8 

On  the  other  hand,  when,  upon  the  arrival  of  troops, 
Seymour  ordered  that  the  weapons  lent  to  citizens  who  had 
volunteered  to  aid  in  preserving  peace  should  be  returned, 
the  Tribune  was  indignant,  and  advised  them  to  pur 
chase  arms.4  Again  it  said:  "Well,  if  Civil  War  must 
come,  let  it  come!  If  the  Copperhead  chiefs  in  the  North 
envy  the  fame  or  the  fortunes  of  their  Southern  brethren, 
we  have  no  choice  but  to  meet  the  issue  they  force  upon 
us."  5  The  administration  papers  kept  urging  the  govern 
ment  to  proceed  with  the  draft.  The  Democrats  advocated 
abandoning  conscription  and  renewed  resort  to  volunteering. 

Democratic    common    councils    and    boards    of    super- 

1  New  York  News,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  14. 

2  Metropolitan  Record,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  14. 

3  New  York  World,  Aug.  n. 
*  Tribune,  July  21. 

6  Tribune,  Aug.  12. 


326       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [526 

visors  showed  a  tendency  to  get  around  the  law  by  appro 
priating  money  to  pay  the  commutation  fee  of  those  drafted, 
on  the  ground  that  the  three-hundred-dollar  clause  was 
the  part  of  the  act  obnoxious  to  the  poorer  classes  who 
felt  it  to  be  partial  and  unjust,  and  that  by  purchasing 
such  exemptions  future  disturbances  would  be  averted.  Of 
course,  such  a  proceeding,  since  it  would  furnish  no  men 
for  the  army,  was  contrary  to  the  intent  of  the  law.  New 
York  City  had  a  Republican-Unionist  mayor,  Opdyke;  and 
he  promptly  vetoed  an  ordinance  providing  for  such  pay 
ments,  which  had  been  introduced  and  adopted  by  the  Com 
mon  Council  during  the  outbreak.  Opdyke  rightly  declared 
that  the  measure  was  "  calculated  to  nullify  the  law  against 
which  riotous  resistance  was  made "  and  that  it  was  "  a 
price  offered  to  a  lawless  mob  to  desist  from  further  as 
saults  upon  the  lives  and  property  of  our  citizens."  1  Fin 
ally,  the  matter  was  compromised  by  the  appropriation  of 
money  to  procure  substitutes  for  drafted  firemen,  policemen, 
active  members  of  the  militia,  and  indigent  citizens  having 
dependent  families.  In  this  way,  for  every  one  drafted, 
some  one  was  mustered  into  service.2  In  Brooklyn,  the  ef 
forts  of  the  Democrats  to  pass  an  ordinance  appropriating 
money  to  purchase  exemptions  was  balked  by  the  banks, 
which,  controlled  by  administration  supporters,  declined  to 
take  the  loan  wherewith  the  necessary  funds  were  to  be  ob 
tained.3  In  Westchester  County,  attempts  were  made  under 
the  lead  of  John  B.  Haskin  to  get  through  the  Board  of 

1  Herald,  July  21,  28,  Aug.  20. 

z  Herald,  Aug.  29 ;  but  it  was  provided  that  in  case  such  substitutes 
or  any  of  them  could  not  be  procured  within  the  required  time,  the 
three  hundred  dollars  for  the  classes  enumerated  was  to  be  paid  to 
the  government. 

*  Herald,  Sept.  3. 


527]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  327 

Supervisors   such   an   appropriation,1   and    some   tip-State 
localities  passed  acts  for  that  purpose.2 

Meanwhile,  the  President  had  been  appealed  to  by  the 
Governor  to  suspend  the  draft  until  a  letter  on  which  he 
was  working  should  reach  Washington.3  Under  date  of 
August  3rd,  Seymour  sent  the  promised  epistle  to  Lincoln.4 
In  the  first  place,  he  declared  that  the  enrolment  was 
decidedly  unfair  and  partisan.  ''  Justice  and  prudence 
alike,"  the  Governor  wrote,  "  demand  that  this  lottery  for 
life  shall  be  conducted  with  the  utmost  fairness  and  open 
ness."  A  draft  ought  not,  he  said,  to  be  executed  "  in  any 
spirit  of  resentment."  He  claimed  that  the  amount  of  credit 
allowed  by  the  Provost  Marshal  General  for  troops  in  ex 
cess  already  raised  by  New  York  was  far  too  small.  The 
quotas  apportioned  to  the  congressional  districts  in  New 
York  City  and  Kings  County  were  "  glaringly  unjust," 
either  because  of  a  padded  enrolment  in  those  districts  or 
because  of  a  grossly  deficient  enrolment  in  the  rest  of  the 
State.  Seymour  cited  the  Fourth  Congressional  District, 
which  with  a  population  of  131,854  had  a  quota  of  5,881, 
while  the  Fifteenth  Congressional  District  with  132,232 
inhabitants  was  called  upon  for  only  2,260  men. 5  From 
these  and  other  figures,  the  Governor  concluded  that  the 

1  Herald,  July  24. 

2  The    Common    Council    of    Rochester    passed    such    an    ordinance 
(Tribune,  July  22);  so  did  that  of  Troy  (Argus,  Sept.  8).     See  also 
the  chapter  on  the  Legislative  Session  of  1864,  infra. 

3  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  vii,  p.  32. 

4  Printed  in  full  in  the  Herald,  Aug.  10. 

5  In  a  later  letter  of  August  8th,  printed  in  the  Herald,  Aug.  n,  he 
asserted  that  nine  Democratic  districts  in  1860  whose  total  vote  in  that 
year   was   151,243  were  to  furnish  33,729  men,  while  nineteen  Repub 
lican  districts,   whose  vote  in   1860  was   457,257,  were  to  supply  but 
39,626. 


328       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [528 

"  inequalities  fall  most  heavily  upon  those  districts  which 
have  been  opposed  to  its  [the  administration's]  political 
views/1  The  abandonment  of  voluntary  enlistment  for 
conscription  would  prove,  the  Governor  thought,  "  unfor 
tunate  as  a  policy,  nor  would  it  secure  either  so  many  or 
so  effective  men  "  as  the  volunteer  system.  He  therefore 
asked  that  the  execution  of  the  draft  in  New  York  State 
be  suspended  until  the  results  of  recruiting  there  should  be 
learned.  Then  Seymour  made  a  more  preposterous  re 
quest — that  the  law  providing  for  the  draft  be  not  executed 
until  its  constitutionality  could  be  judicially  determined. 
"  It  is  believed  by  at  least  one-half  of  the  people  of  the  loyal 
States,"  he  said, 

that  the  Conscription  act,  which  they  are  called  upon  to  obey 
because  it  stands  upon  the  statute  book,  is  in  itself  a  violation 
of  the  supreme  constitutional  law.  ...  In  the  minds  of  the 
American  people  the  duty  of  obedience  and  the  right  of  pro 
tection  are  inseparable.  .  .  .  This  government  and  our  peopie 
have  more  to  fear  from  an  acquiescence  in  the  disorganizing 
teachings  that  war  suspends  their  legal  rights  or  destroys 
their  legal  remedy  than  they  have  to  fear  from  resistance  to 
the  doctrine  that  measures  can  be  enforced  without  regard 
to  the  decisions  of  judicial  tribunals.  .  .  .  The  successful 
execution  of  the  Conscription  act  depends  upon  the  settlement 
by  judicial  tribunals  of  its  constitutionality.  ...  A  refusal 
to  submit  it  to  this  test  will  be  regarded  as  evidence  that  it 
wants  legality  and  binding  force.  ...  It  would  be  a  cruel 
mockery  to  withhold  such  decision  until  after  the  irremediable 
injury  of  its  execution  upon  those  who  are  unable  to  pay  the 
sum  demanded  in  lieu  of  their  persons.  ...  I  do  not  dwell 
upon  what  I  believe  would  be  the  consequence  of  a  violent, 
harsh  policy  before  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  is  tested. 
You  can  scan  the  immediate  future  as  well  as  I.  The  temper 
of  the  people  you  can  readily  learn  by  consulting,  as  I  have 


529]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  329 

done,  with  men  of  all  political  parties  and  of  every  profession 
and  occupation. 

This  constitutional  homily  was  thoroughly  characteristic 
of  Seymour.  Denouncing  in  the  beginning  of  his  letter  vio 
lence,  his  legal  subtilties  had  brought  him  at  the  end  to 
what  amounted  to  an  apology  for  resistance  to  the  law. 

In  reply,  the  President  temporarily  reduced  the  quotas 
in  the  districts  complained  of  to  the  average  required 
from  the  remainder  of  the  State.  Further,  he  promised  to 
have  the  first  mentioned  districts  "  carefully  reenrolled — 
and,  if  you  please,  agents  of  yours  may  witness  every  step 
of  that  process."  Any  deficiency  shown  by  the  new  enrol 
ment  was  to  be  made  good  by  a  special  draft,  and  due  credit 
would  be  given  for  volunteers.  But  of  course  the  Presi 
dent,  pointing  out  the  urgent  need  of  obtaining  recruits  im 
mediately,  refused  to  suspend  the  draft  as  requested.1 

Seymour's  letters  to  the  President  constituted  in  some 
respects  a  more  partisan  performance  than  anything  of 
which  complaint  was  made;  and  coming  as  they  did  when 
the  riot  was  barely  suppressed,  they  deserve  severe  con 
demnation.  It  might  be  thought  that  the  sincerity  of  the 
Governor  and  the  great  pressure  upon  him  from  a  certain 
element  of  the  Democratic  party  and  press  to  ward  off  in 
some  manner  the  draft  should  excuse  him  from  this  judg 
ment.  A  letter,  however,  written  by  him  to  Tilden,  under 
date  of  August  6th,  affords  a  key  to  his  actions.  He  re 
cognizes  therein  that  forcible  resistance  would  aid  rather 
than  embarrass  the  national  government.  But  he  thinks 
that  "  the  conscription  will  make  the  administration  odious 
and  contemptible."  He  states  that  he  has  just  sent  to  the 
President  a  communication  objecting  to  the  draft,  and 

1  Lincoln's  Works  (Gettysburg  Edition),  ix,  pp.  58-61;  69-70. 


330       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [530 

adds  regarding  this  letter,  "  It  will  do  no  good,  except  mak 
ing  up  a  record."  *  This,  then,  was  the  aim  of  Seymour's 
lengthy  correspondence  with  Lincoln — to  make  a  record. 

The  Governor's  main  contentions  were:  first,  that  the 
quota  allotted  to  New  York  State  should  be  reduced  by  about 
forty-two  thousand  because  of  excess  troops  furnished  on 
previous  calls;  second,  that  within  the  State  the  quotas  as 
signed  to  the  different  congressional  districts  were  dispro 
portionate,  that  the  inequalities  were  partisan,  to  the  dis 
advantage  of  Democratic  districts,  and  that  the  cities  of 
New  York  and  Brooklyn,  far  from  being  deficient  in  pre 
vious  calls,  had  furnished  more  than  their  share;  third,  that 
in  the  cities,  where  the  Democratic  party  was  the  stronger, 
men  had  been  enrolled  more  than  once;  fourth,  that  the 
execution  of  the  law  providing  for  a  draft  should  be  post 
poned  until  a  judicial  decision  as  to  its  constitutionality 
could  be  obtained;  and  fifth,  that  the  volunteer  system 
should  again  be  relied  upon  since  it  furnished  more  troops 
than  drafting. 

Perhaps  the  first  contention  had  some  foundation.  By 
the  subsequent  adjudication  of  a  commission  appointed  by 
the  President,  New  York  State  was  credited  with  more  than 
thirteen  thousand  men.2  For  this,  Seymour  received  the 
unanimous  thanks  of  the  Assembly  of  1864,  a  majority  of 
whom  were  politically  opposed  to  him.3  He  certainly  saved 
the  State  and  also  the  local  districts  a  large  sum  which  other 
wise  would  have  been  spent  in  bounties.  But  it  should  be 

1  Bigelow's  Letters  and  Literary  Memorials  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  i, 
p.  184. 

2  Message  of  Seymour  to  the  Legislature,   (Lincoln's  Messages  from 
the  Governor,  v,  pp.  571-4).     According  to  a  subsequent  report  of  the 
Assembly  committee  on  federal  relations,  the  reduction  numbered  but 
12,500  (Herald,  April  18). 

3  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  P- 


53 1  ]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  331 

noted  that  two  of  the  three  members  of  the  commission  were 
Democrats,  one  being  William  F.  Allen,  his  party's  nominee 
for  judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  this  very  year  and  for 
lieutenant-governor  in  1860,  and  an  intimate  friend  of  Sey 
mour.  Moreover,  in  arriving  at  the  decision,  the  terms  of 
the  law  as  to  the  adjustment  of  quotas  were  absolutely 
ignored.1  The  reduction  was  made  upon  the  theory  that 
population  (for  which  the  census  of  1860  had  to  be  used) 
should  be  the  basis  of  the  quotas.  This  not  merely  disre 
garded  the  shifting  of  population  since  1860  but  laid  a 
lesser  burden  upon  districts  which  had  been  slack  in  fur 
nishing  recruits  than  on  those  which  by  raising  large  num 
bers  of  volunteers  had  reduced  the  proportion  of  their  adult 
males  of  drafting  age.2  The  days  following  the  riot  were, 
at  any  rate,  not  the  most  suitable  time  for  pressing  this 
claim. 

As  to  the  second  and  third  contentions,  the  enrolment  was 
far  from  perfect,  as  was  shown  later.  This,  however,  was 
to  be  expected  under  the  circumstances.  The  reputation 
of  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  for  honesty  and  ability  was 
high.  His  assistants  in  New  York  were  chosen  with  care 
and  were  directed  to  cooperate  with  the  state  and  local 
authorities.3  According  to  Fry's  report/  the  work  was 
done  very  carefully,  all  possible  precautions  were  taken, 
and  the  enrolling  officers  were  sworn  to  execute  their  duties 
faithfully.5  Moreover,  Seymour  had  never  expressed  any 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  vii,  pp.  40,  41 ;  Fry's  New  York 
and  the  Conscription  of  1863,  p.  51. 

2  Fry's  New  York  and  the  Conscription,  pp.  40,  55. 

3  Fry's  New  York  and  the  Conscription,  pp.  13-17. 

4  Printed  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  17. 

6  The  commission  subsequently  appointed  to  examine  and  correct  the 
inequalities  exonerated  the  enrolling  officers  from  any  impeachment 
of  their  integrity  and  stated  that  the  errors  could  not  possibly  have 


332       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [532 

objection  to  the  enrolment  until  after  the  riot.1  Then  too, 
it  was  shown  that  the  enrolment  in  the  congressional  district 
most  complained  of  by  the  Governor — the  Fourth — differed 
little  from  that  made  by  the  State  in  the  previous  year.2 
While  Seymour's  statistics  at  first  glance  are  somewhat  con 
vincing,  and  probably  were  very  much  so  to  the  anti-adminis 
tration  reader  of  war  days,  the  Governor  ignored  the  facts 
that  large  numbers  of  adult  males  were  constantly  coming 
from  the  country  districts  to  the  metropolis,  that  the  popula 
tion  of  New  York  City  and  Brooklyn  was  rapidly  increasing 
from  immigration,  and  that  a  great  many  of  the  troops  sent 
from  these  localities  were  nine  months  men  whereas  the  up- 
State  districts  had  mostly  sent  two  and  three  years  men. 
Even  such  of  the  long-term  regiments  as  were  raised  in  New 
York  City  were  largely  filled  with  men  from  the  interior 
counties.3  He  overlooked  that  districts  which  had  been 

been  avoided;  nor  could  the  commission  suggest  a  better  method  of 
enrolment  (Herald,  April  18;  Fry's  New  York  and  the  Conscription, 
P-  50). 

1  Fry's  New  York  and  the  Conscription,  p.  32. 

2  Report  of  Fry,  Tribune,  Aug.  17. 

3  One  three  years  man  was  counted  by  the  government  as  equivalent 
to    four   nine   months   men.     As    for   regiments    nominally    raised    in 
New  York  City  but  filled  with  recruits  from  up-State,  see  the  figures 
given   in   the    Tribune,    Aug.    15.    According   to   that   journal,    these 
facts  were  ignored  by  the  Governor,  by  his  adjutant-general,  Sprague 
(Report  of   Sprague  printed  in  the   Tribune,   Aug.  20),   and  by  the 
judge-advocate   general,    Waterbury    (Report   printed   in   the  Herald, 
Aug.   13).     Waterbury,  by  crediting  New  York  City  with  the  entire 
regiments  whose  headquarters  during  enlistment  had  been  there  or  in 
the  vicinity,  produced  figures  showing  that  New  York  City  had  fur 
nished  thousands  in  excess  of  its  quotas.    While  Sprague  admitted  that 
this  was  not  correct,  he  balanced  however  the  men  drawn  from  up- 
State  by  enlistments  made  by  the  New  England  States  and  New  Jersey 
in   New   York   City.      Sprague's   figures    of   the   men    raised   by    New 
York    City    under    the    third    and    fourth    calls    differ    from    those 


533]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  333 

foremost  in  volunteering  would  naturally  show  a  smaller 
number  of  men  of  military  age  in  proportion  to  the  popula 
tion  in  1860  or  the  vote  in  that  year  than  districts  which  had 
been  backward. 

Previous  to  the  next  draft,  a  circular  of  November,  1863, 
directed  that  the  boards  of  enrolment  display  in  at  least 
five  places  in  each  district  printed  alphabetical  lists  of  those 
enrolled,  with  their  residences,  and  that  any  one  on  the 
lists  might  appear  before  a  board  up  to  the  2Oth  of  Decem 
ber  to  show  that  on  account  of  alienage,  non-residence, 
age  or  disability  he  was  not  liable  to  military  duty.1  If  this 
circular  seems  to  justify  to  some  extent  the  complaints  of 
Seymour,  it  likewise  shows  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the 
Washington  authorities  to  satisfy  the  Governor  where  prac 
ticable.  The  difficulty  of  avoiding  double  enrolment  was 
shown  by  the  indifference  of  those  most  interested  in  having 
their  names  stricken  from  the  rolls  when  an  opportunity  to 
do  so  was  given.2  Seymour,  apparently,  never  made  the 
slightest  use  of  Lincoln's  offer  that  the  Governor's  agents 
might  witness  every  step  in  the  process  of  making  another 
enrolment  in  the  disputed  districts. 

The  enrolment,  then,  was  probably  very  faulty,  but  not 
intentionally  so  for  partisan  purposes,  and  perhaps  not  to 
the  degree  insisted  upon  by  Seymour. 

furnished  by  Waterbury;  and  both  are  greatly  in  excess  of  those  given 
by  the  report  of  Adjutant-General  Hillhouse  (Tribune,  Aug.  20).  In 
a  subsequent  statement,  Sprague  admitted  that  a  large  number  of  the 
excess  which  he  had  credited  to  New  York  City  must  be  deducted 
for  men  drawn  from  other  parts  of  the  State;  thereby,  he  reduced 
New  York  City's  alleged  excess  by  about  one-half  (Tribune,  Aug.  29). 

1  Herald,  Nov.  28. 

2  See    Seymour's    proclamation    of    Nov.    21,    1864    (printed    in    the 
Tribune,  Nov.  25,  1864)  and  the  appeal  of  the  New  York  County  Com 
mittee  on  Volunteering  of  Dec.  i,  1864  (Tribune,  Dec.  29,  1864). 


334       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [534 

The  delaying  of  the  draft  until  its  constitutionality  could 
be  judicially  determined  was  not  only  highly  inexpedient, 
but  also  wholly  without  legal  warrant.  The  Supreme 
Court  would  not  meet  until  the  following  December,  and 
more  time  must  necessarily  elapse  before  a  decision  was 
rendered.  In  the  meanwhile,  where  would  the  much  needed 
reinforcements  be  obtained?  By  volunteering,  urged  Sey 
mour;  by  conscription,  the  government  would  not  get 
many  men  besides  substitutes  who  were  really,  he  claimed, 
volunteers.  But  this  argument  was  in  total  disregard 
of  facts.  It  was  notorious  that  volunteering  had  almost 
ceased.1  In  reality,  nothing  but  an  impending  draft 
stimulated  both  volunteering  and  substituting.  It  was  then 
that  the  cities  and  counties  bestirred  themselves  and  offered 
large  bounties.  The  armies  must  be  recruited  if  the  war 
was  to  be  brought  to  a  successful  conclusion,  drafting  was 
the  only  method  of  getting  sufficient  men  at  that  stage 
of  the  struggle,  and  therefore  Seymour  can  hardly  be  ac 
quitted  either  of  being  blind  to  the  most  patent  facts  or  else 
of  disregarding  them  for  partisan  reasons.  He  certainly 
did  not  have  the  sagacity  to  rise  above  the  mass  of  his  party 
by  recognizing  in  the  law  for  drafting  a  necessary  experi 
ment  whose  imperfections  might  be  corrected,  but  which  be 
cause  of  the  exigency  must  be  tried  without  delay.  His  atti 
tude  was  captious  and  seriously  embarrassing  to  the  govern- 

1  This  fact  was  admitted  by  the  Argus  in  April :  "  Their  [the  peo 
ple's]  practical  answer  to  these  questions  is  to  be  found  in  the  total  ab 
sence  of  all  offers  of  volunteers  or  recruits  .  .  ."  (Argus,  April  3, 
1864).  See  also  on  this  point  of  the  cessation  of  volunteering  in  New 
York  the  report  of  the  Adjutant-General  of  New  York,  dated  Dec.  31, 
1862  (quoted  in  Fry's  New  York  and  the  Conscription,  p.  4)  ;  letter  of 
August  Belmont  to  Weed  printed  in  Barnes's  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  421 ; 
Burt's  My  Memoirs  of  the  Military  History  of  the  State  of  N.ew 
York,  pp.  118,  133;  and  many  statements  in  the  press  at  the  time. 


535]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  335 

ment.  He  showed  anything  but  a  disposition  to  ensure  har 
mony  with  the  authorities  at  Washington  for  the  sake  of  the 
common  cause;  and  his  correspondence,  published  in  the 
newspapers,  justified  in  their  own  minds  the  disloyal  ele 
ments  who  were  striving  to  bring  about  a  collision  between 
the  state  and  federal  governments.  Lincoln's  answers  to 
Seymour  on  the  other  hand  were  eminently  tactful,  conced 
ing  all  that  could  justly  be  asked. 

Despite  the  Governor's  wordy  appeals,  the  draft  took  place 
in  due  time.  On  July  3Oth,  General  Dix,  in  command  of 
the  national  forces  at  New  York,  wrote  to  Seymour  to  in 
quire  whether  the  aid  of  the  state  militia  might  be  relied  on 
in  enforcing  the  law.  Seymour  answered  that  he  had  just 
written  to  the  President,  and  that  he  believed  that  the  lat- 
ter's  reply  would  relieve  them  both  from  "  the  painful  ques 
tions  growing  out  of  an  armed  enforcement  of  the  Con 
scription  law  in  this  patriotic  State."  On  August  8th,  Dix 
again  wrote  to  the  Governor,  requesting  the  earliest  prac 
ticable  assurance  that  the  militia  would,  in  case  of  need, 
assist  in  carrying  out  the  draft;  otherwise  the  General 
would  call  upon  the  authorities  at  Washington  for  an  ade 
quate  force.  Dix  also  included  in  his  letter  a  brief  but 
dignified  defense  of  the  law.  Seymour's  reply,  inexcusably 
delayed,  was  utterly  unworthy,  considering  the  circum 
stances.  He  stated  that  he  had  received  the  President's  an 
swer  apprising  him  of  the  government's  determination  to 
proceed  with  the  draft;  as  to  the  position  of  the  state 
officials  in  case  of  popular  resistance,  the  Governor  said : 

Of  course,  under  no  circumstance,  can  they  perform  duties 
expressly  to  relieve  others  from  their  proper  responsibilities. 
But  there  can  be  no  violations  of  good  order,  no  riotous  pro 
ceedings,  no  disturbances  of  public  peace,  which  are  not  in 
fractions  of  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  these  laws  will  be  en- 


336       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [536 

forced  under  all  circumstances  ...  if  need  be  the  military 
power  will  be  called  into  requisition.  .  .  . 1 

In  other  words,  Seymour  said  that  if  a  riot  should  break 
out,  he  would,  if  necessary,  use  the  militia  to  suppress  it; 
but  that  they  should  not  be  used  to  execute  the  draft, 
and  that  the  national  government  would  have  to  depend 
upon  its  own  agencies  for  that  purpose.  That  meant  the 
withdrawal  of  United  States  troops  from  the  front  at  a 
most  critical  period.  This  was  done,  and  General  Dix  was 
able  to  reply  to  the  Governor  that  he  would  be  ready  to 
meet  all  opposition  to  the  draft.  But  it  was  at  the  cost  of 
retarding  army  operations.2  How  differently  these  two 
men,  Dix  and  Seymour,  both  Democrats,  appear  in  this  cor 
respondence  ! 

On  August  1 8th,  the  Governor  issued  a  proclamation 
warning  all  persons  against  violent  resistance  to  the  laws, 
again  declaring  as  in  his  previous  proclamation  that  the  only 
opposition  to  the  conscription  which  could  be  allowed  was 
"  an  appeal  to  the  courts,"  and  admonishing  all  judicial  and 
executive  officers  "  to  take  vigorous  and  effective  measures 
to  put  down  any  riotous  or  unlawful  assemblages,"  if  neces 
sary  calling  upon  the  militia.8  Even  here,  however,  the  Gov 
ernor  did  not  refrain  from  reiterating  his  belief  in  the  im 
policy  of  drafting  before  securing  a  judicial  decision  on 
the  constitutionality  of  the  law,  and  he  comforted  the  ill- 
disposed  by  declaring  that  the  constitution  and  the  statutes 
of  the  State  and  the  nation  contained  ample  remedies  for 
any  real  or  imaginary  wrong.  He  continued  by  mail  and 

1  Correspondence  between  Dix  and  Seymour,  printed  in  the  Herald, 
Aug.  29. 

2  Order  of  Halleck  to  Meade;  letter  of  Meade  to  Halleck,  quoted  in 
Fry's  New  York  and  the  Conscription,  pp.  83,  84. 

8  Printed  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  19. 


SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  337 

telegraph  his  protests  to  the  Washington  government,  and 
so  long  as  he  remained  in  office  ceased  not  in  his  warfare 
against  the  draft.1 

Seymour's  conduct  in  the  whole  matter  was  justly  made 
a  subject  of  attack  by  his  political  opponents.  When  the 
Union  State  Convention  met  at  Utica  on  September  2nd, 
Weed  was  absent,  and  his  followers  were  accordingly  led 
by  Raymond.  Greeley  was  present,  while  Opdyke  marshalled 
the  radical  forces  on  the  convention  floor.  The  Weed-Sew- 
ard  men  were  more  numerous  than  a  year  ago  when  the  rad 
ical  faction  had  had  its  way.2  There  was,  however,  a  deter 
mined  effort  to  prevent  any  outbreak  of  differences  between 
the  two  wings  of  the  party.3  Accordingly,  as  soon  as  the 
convention  was  called  to  order,  Opdyke  moved  that  a  recess 
be  taken  to  afford  time  for  further  conferences  that  harmon 
ious  action  might  be  brought  about.  Raymond  seconded 
the  motion,  and  it  was  carried  with  the  support  of  both  sides. 
As  a  result,  when  the  convention  again  met,  the  organiza 
tion  was  effected  without  any  contest,  the  temporary  chair 
manship  going  to  a  radical,  Ward  Hunt,  and  the  presidency 
to  Abram  Wakeman,  a  Weed  adherent.  The  ticket  like 
wise  was  arranged  by  an  informal  committee  of  both  fac 
tions.  This  attempt  to  preserve  concord  was  on  the  whole 
successful.  Colonel  Peter  A.  Porter  was  nominated  for 
secretary  of  state,  Thomas  W.  Olcott  for  controller, 
George  W.  Schuyler  for  state  treasurer,  and  Henry  R. 
Selden  for  judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals.  It  was  felt  that 
a  War  Democrat  ought  to  have  the  nomination  for  attorney- 
general,  following  the  precedent  of  two  years  before;  and 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  vii,  pp.  38,  43. 

2  Herald,  Sept.  I. 

3  Herald,    Sept.    2 ;    Tribune,     Sept.    3,    dispatch    signed    "  H.    G." 
(Greeley). 


338       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [538 

accordingly  General  John  Cochrane  was  given  the  place. 
But  the  slate  was  broken  when  Benjamin  F.  Bruce  was 
named  for  canal  commissioner,  W.  B.  Taylor  for  state 
engineer,  and  James  K.  Bates  for  inspector  of  state  prisons.1 
Of  course,  no  overtures  such  as  had  been  made  to  the  Demo 
crats  in  1 86 1  and  1862  were  attempted  now. 

The  resolutions,  as  reported  by  the  committee  headed  by 
Raymond,  recognized  the  supreme  duty  of  laying  aside  party 
differences  and  cordially  supporting  the  government  in  its 
efforts  to  suppress  the  rebellion.  They  favored  a  prompt 
and  effective  reinforcement  of  the  Union  armies.  They 
condemned  as 

unpatriotic  and  unfaithful  to  the  loyal  sentiment  of  the  State 
.  .  .  the  action  of  its  present  Governor,  and  of  those  who 
have  acted  with  him  in  embarrassing  the  efforts  of  the  gov 
ernment  to  increase  its  military  force,  in  stimulating  a  spirit 
of  violent  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  in  encour 
aging  the  horrible  outrages  upon  the  peace  and  order  of 
society,  and  upon  the  persons  and  property  of  unoffending 
citizens,  which  recently  have  disgraced  the  city  of  New  York. 

Further,  the  resolutions  pronounced  against  any  proffer  of 
peace  to  the  states  in  rebellion  other  than  such  as  was  "  em 
bodied  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  under  which 
they  can  at  any  time  resume  their  place  in  the  American 
Union,  subject  only  to  such  pains  and  penalties  as  they  may 
have  incurred  by  a  violation  of  its  laws;  .  .  .  '  The  ad 
ministration  of  Lincoln,  and  particularly  its  financial  policy, 
its  diplomatic  achievements,  and  its  victories  in  war  were 
commended.  Along  with  the  customary  thanks  to  those  in 
the  army  and  navy,  the  action  of  Governor  Seymour  and 
his  supporters  in  the  late  Legislature  in  regard  to  the  sol 
diers'  voting  bill  was  branded  as  unpatriotic,  invidious,  and 
1  Herald,  Sept.  3 ;  Tribune,  Sept.  3. 


539]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  339 

unjust.  These  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted,  but 
some  of  the  radical  delegates  were  not  satisfied.  One  of 
them  offered  an  additional  resolution  declaring  that  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation  demanded  "  from  all  loyal  men 
a  cordial  endorsement,  and  from  this  Convention  an  em 
phatic  approval."  This  proposal  met  with  opposition. 
Mr.  Raymond  said  that  the  assemblage  was  a  Union  and 
not  a  Republican  convention,  and  that  many  loyal  men 
doubted  the  propriety  of  endorsing  the  proclamation.  A 
motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  suggested  resolution  was 
lost.  Finally,  the  matter  was  compromised  by  an  amend 
ment  inserting  the  words,  "  and  as  a  war  measure  thor 
oughly  legal  and  justifiable,"  after  which  the  resolution  was 
adopted.1 

In  the  new  Union  State  Committee,  anti-Weed  members 
were  in  several  instances  displaced  by  Weed  men,  and  the 
organization  of  the  committee  passed  into  the  latter's 
hands.2  Subsequently,  Porter  and  Olcott  declined  to  run, 
greatly  to  the  joy  of  the  Democrats.8  The  Union  State 
Committee  filled  the  vacancies  with  Chauncey  M.  Depew, 
who  as  chairman  of  the  committee  of  ways  and  means  had 
distinguished  himself  in  the  last  assembly  and  had  been 
Porter's  rival  in  the  convention,  and  Lucius  Robinson,  whose 
renomination  was  a  sop  to  the  anti-Weed  men.4  The  day 

1  Herald,  Sept.  3. 

2  Herald,   Sept.  9;  Argus,   Sept.  4;  a  partial  confirmation  is  given 
by  the  insistence  of  the  Albany  Statesman  (strongly  anti-Weed)   that 
the  state  committee  could  not  fill  any  vacancies  in  the  ticket.     Henry 
R.   Low,   who  belonged  to  the   anti-Weed   faction,   was  displaced   as 
chairman,  being  succeeded  by  Charles  Jones. 

8  The  Argus  kept  gloating  over  these  declinations,  e.  g.  editorial  of 
Sept.  10. 

4  Herald,  Sept.  9 ;  partly  confirmed  by  an  editorial  of  the  Albany 
Statesman  (anti-Weed)  in  which  the  passing  over  of  Dickinson  and 
Robinson  is  bitterly  assailed  (quoted  in  the  Argus,  Sept.  5). 


340       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [540 

after  the  convention,  in  accordance  with  the  recommenda 
tion  of  the  Union  State  Committee,1  a  mass  ratification 
meeting  of  loyal  young  men  took  place.  The  gathering 
was  large  and  enthusiastic,  and  endorsed  the  sentiments  and 
candidates  of  the  Union  State  Convention.2 

The  Democratic  State  Convention  assembled  at  Albany 
on  September  Qth.  The  question  of  New  York  County's 
representation  was  complicated  this  year  by  the  fact  that  to 
the  usual  delegations  from  Tammany  and  Mozart  was  added 
a  third  one  sent  by  a  new  organization  led  by  John  McKeon. 
That  the  up-State  men  would  have  been  glad  to  seat  all  of 
these  contestants  s  was  shown  by  the  passage  of  a  resolution, 
despite  Tammany's  opposition,  requesting  the  delegations 
from  New  York  City  to  withdraw  for  consultation  with  a 
view  to  uniting.4  Tammany,  in  the  face  of  a  new  revolt 
of  threatening  proportions,  quietly  divided  power  with 
Mozart.  It  was  agreed  that  each  of  the  two  delegations 
should  cast  eight  votes  and  alternately  a  ninth.  Tammany 
so  reported  to  the  convention,  and  also  that  in  this  matter 
she  could  not  recognize  any  other  organization  than  Mozart ; 
and  the  latter  announced  that  she  could  recognize  none  other 
than  Tammany.  The  previous  question  being  ordered, 
this  arrangement  was  ratified  by  the  convention,  leaving 
McKeon  and  his  followers  in  the  cold;  and  they  accord 
ingly  withdrew.5 

At  the  evening  session,  Governor  Seymour,  upon  invita 
tion,  addressed  the  convention.  After  he  had  spoken  of  the 

1  Call  of  the  Union  State  Committee,  Tribune,  July  25. 

2  Herald,  Sept.  4. 

3  Confirmed   by   a  Herald   dispatch   on   the   eve   of   the   convention 
(Herald,  Sept.  9)  and  by  the  Tribune,  Sept.  9. 

4  Herald,  Sept.  10;  Argus,  Sept.  10. 

5  Herald,  Sept.  10;  Argus,  Sept.  10. 


541  ]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  341 

duty  of  maintaining  the  constitution  as  the  lesson  of  the  war 
and  had  predicted  the  inevitable  failure  of  the  attempt  to 
centralize  power  to  the  detriment  of  the  rights  of  the  states, 
he  proceeded  to  discuss  the  draft  and  his  own  connection 
with  that  event.  He  reiterated  his  oft-expressed  views 
against  the  conscription  act  and  in  favor  of  volunteering. 
"  Many  harsh  words  and  unjust  charges,'*  he  said, 

have  been  indulged  in  by  our  opponents  towards  myself ;  .  .  . 
I  owe  it  to  you  to  say  that  I  have  never  sought  to  embarrass 
the  government  Traduced  by  its  friends  as  I  have  been,  I 
have  seen  in  its  many  mistakes  reason  to  uphold  it,  and  I  have 
sought  to  direct  it  in  that  course,  which  its  own  honor,  as  well 
as  the  honor  of  the  country,  clearly  dictates.  I  have  appealed 
with  no  selfish  or  partisan  object  in  view  to  its  friends  and 
its  agents,  whenever  an  opportunity  was  presented,  to  avoid 
the  errors  into  which  it  has  fallen.  Was  it  unfriendly  to 
warn  it  of  those  unfair  provisions  in  this  conscription  which 
were  so  plainly  calculated  to  render  it  objectionable  and  odious 
to  the  people  ?  .  .  .  Whose  interest  was  it  that  the  law  should 
be  enforced  in  the  fairest  and  most  unobjectionable  manner? 
...  In  all  this  I  have  been  guided  simply  and  solely  by  a 
desire  to  save  the  government  from  this  great  and  fatal  error. 

Further  on,  the  Governor  declared  that  he  had  at  all  times 
sought  to  sustain  the  army  and  that  he  had  neglected  no 
opportunity  to  send  succor  to  New  York's  men. 

Passing  from  a  defense  of  his  own  actions  to  a  consider 
ation  of  the  future,  he  stated  that  while  heretofore,  in  view 
of  the  military  situation,  there  had  been  reasons  why  he 
could  not  seek  peace, 

now  our  successes  enable  us  to  seek  it  with  honor  to  ourselves 
and  satisfaction  to  the  people.  .  .  .  The  war  has  reached  an 
other  stage  in  its  progress;  and  a  policy,  different  from  that 
which  has  been  pursued,  must  be  marked  out.  Shall  it  be  a 


342       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [542 

policy  of  subjugation — a  policy  that  will  strip  the  States  of 
all  their  rights?  Such  a  policy  implies  a  long  and  bloody 
war,  and  an  incalculable  waste  of  life  and  treasure.  It  ... 
must  result  in  national  bankruptcy  and  ruin.  ...  I  am  not 
disposed  to  criticise  the  President's  recent  letter x  unkindly. 
.  .  .  He  does  not  in  that  letter  contemplate  an  early  termina 
tion  of  the  war,  nor  does  he  propose  any  time  when  it  will 
cease.  We,  however,  are  ready  to  mark  out  a  policy  now,  and 
that  a  conciliatory  policy,  that  the  States  shall  return  with  all 
their  rights  as  marked  down  in  the  Constitution.  ...  To  the 
dissolution  of  the  Union  I  will  never  consent.  I  would  put 
forth  every  power,  I  would  exhaust  every  measure  of  con 
ciliation,  I  would  appeal  to  the  interests,  the  hopes  and  fears 
of  citizens  of  the  South  and  urge  every  suggestion  which  it 
becomes  a  man  to  make  to  bring  back  the  revolted  States — 
but  as  to  disunion,  I  will  never  consent  to  that.2 

But  what  if  all  these  measures  of  conciliation  failed  ?  The 
question,  as  usual,  was  conveniently  neither  stated  nor 
answered. 

On  the  second  day  came  the  adoption  of  the  platform  and 
the  nominations.  Although  Fernando  Wood  was  a  mem 
ber  of  the  committee  on  resolutions,  it  was  headed  by  a  sup 
porter  of  the  war,  Henry  C.  Murphy;  and  Wood  was  un 
able  to  prevent  the  reaffirmation  of  the  resolutions  of  the 
previous  year,  including  that  in  favor  of  the  prosecution 
of  the  war.3  However,  the  resolutions  of  1863  also  de 
clared  in  favor  of  a  policy  of  conciliation  and  expressed 
regret  for  the  President's  late  letter,  "  which,  while  reiter 
ating  the  visionary  and  unconstitutional  emancipation  policy, 

1  Lincoln's  letter  addressed  "  To  Whom  it  may  Concern,"  setting 
forth  conditions  of  peace;  this  letter  was  occasioned  by  Greeley's 
efforts  at  Niagara;  see  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  iv,  p.  514. 

8  Seymour's  speech  is  printed  in  full  in  the  Argus,  Sept.  n. 

3  Herald,  Sept.  10;  Argus,  Sept.  11. 


543]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  343 

contemplating  no  measure  for  the  restoration  of  the  Union, 
but  looking  to  an  indefinite  protraction  of  the  war  for 
abolition  purposes,  points  to  no  future  but  national  bank 
ruptcy  and  the  subversion  of  our  institutions."  Touching 
upon  reconstruction,  they  condemned  the  doctrine  "  put  for 
ward  by  the  administration — that  no  seceded  State  return 
ing  to  its  allegiance  shall  be  permitted  to  resume  its  place  in 
the  Union  until  it  has  conformed  to  the  will  of  the  party  in 
power."  They  further  declared  that  the  constitution  was 
obligatory  upon  the  government  and  upon  the  people  in 
time  of  war  as  well  as  in  peace.  Vallandigham,  however, 
was  not  endorsed.  While  denouncing  all  mob  violence 
and  favoring  its  suppression  at  all  hazards,  the  resolutions 
declared  that  the  "  abortive  results  of  the  recent  Conscrip 
tion  act  .  .  .  not  less  unjust,  vexatious  and  oppressive,  both 
in  its  character  and  manner  of  execution  .  .  .  should  ad 
monish  the  administration  how  much  wiser  it  would  be  to 
place  its  reliance  on  the  voluntary  action  of  a  gallant  and 
patriotic  people,  ..."  Finally,  the  resolutions  approved 
the  administration  of  Governor  Seymour,  and  commended 
"  his  devotion  to  the  interests  and  dignity  of  the  State,  his 
fearless  assertion  of  the  rights  of  the  citizen,  his  fidelity  to 
the  constitution,  .  .  .  [his]  energy  in  promptly  sending  the 
militia  to  repel  the  invasion  of  ...  Pennsylvania,  .  .  . 
and  the  vigor  which  he  displayed  in  putting  down  a  lawless 
and  reckless  mob."  These  resolutions  went  through  with 
out  debate  and  with  only  one  vote  against  them.1 

The  ticket  apparently  was  a  strong  one.  The  nomination 
of  D.  B.  St.  John  for  secretary  of  state  was  intended  as  a 
recognition  of  the  former  Bell-Everett  men.2  William  F. 

1  Herald,  Sept.  n. 

2  About  fifty  persons  calling  themselves  a  convention  of  the  Con 
stitutional  Union  party  met  at  Albany  the  day  before  the  assembling 
of  the  Democratic  State  Convention,  and  tried  to  strike  up  a  bargain 


344       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [544 

Allen,  who  had  been  for  years  on  the  state  Supreme  Court 
bench  and  who  had  voluntarily  relinquished  his  party's 
nomination  for  lieutenant-governor  in  1860  in  order  to 
make  room  for  one  more  acceptable  to  the  supporters  of 
Breckinridge,  was  named  for  judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals. 
Sanford  E.  Church,  who  had  already  served  as  controller 
and  lieutenant-governor  was  now  nominated  for  the  former 
office  again.  Marshall  B.  Champlain,  the  nominee  for 
attorney-general,  had  been  honored  with  the  same  place  on 
the  Democratic  ticket  of  two  years  previous.  William  B. 
Lewis,  who  though  elected  by  the  Unionists  had  acted  with 
the  Democrats,  was  renominated  for  state  treasurer.  These 
and  the  remaining  candidates  were  chosen  without  any  in 
terruption  of  the  prevailing  harmony,  after  which  the  con 
vention  adjourned  with  cheers  for  McClellan  and  Seymour.1 
The  campaign  was  fought  in  great  part  upon  the  same 
issues  as  that  of  the  previous  year.  The  Democrats  again 
pleaded  for  the  constitution,  personal  liberty,  a  free  press, 
the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  the  constitu 
tional  guarantees  of  private  property;  they  condemned  cen 
tralization  and  upheld  states'  rights;  they  talked  of  the  per 
version  of  the  war  for  abolition  purposes,  of  its  conversion 
into  a  war  of  subjugation,  and  of  the  administration's  failure 
to  bring  it  to  an  end;  they  assailed  the  corruption  and  the 

with  the  latter  for  two  places  on  the  ticket.  By  this  time,  however, 
it  was  generally  acknowledged  that  these  men  had  no  following. 
The  Democratic  Convention  tabled  the  request  for  the  endorsement 
of  the  two  names  put  forth  by  the  Constitutional  Union  party.  In  the 
end,  however,  it  was  deemed  wise  to  give  to  the  former  supporters  of 
Bell  some  recognition;  and  so  St.  John  was  nominated.  The  Con 
stitutional  Union  State  Committee  accepted  this  bone;  the  two  gentle 
men  already  nominated  by  their  convention  kindly  withdrew,  and  the 
whole  Democratic  ticket  was  endorsed  (Herald,  Sept,  9,  10,  25; 
Argus,  Sept.  10,  11,  25). 
1  Herald,  Sept.  u;  Argus,  Sept.  u. 


545]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  345 

incompetency  of  the  government  and  its  generals,  the  enor 
mous  waste  of  treasure  and  blood,  the  depreciated  currency, 
and  the  national  banks.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Unionists 
made  the  same  appeals  as  before,  that  patriotic  men  should 
join  in  sustaining  the  administration.  They  put  forth  the 
same  claims  that  the  Union  party  was  a  non-partisan  move 
ment,  accused  the  Democratic  leaders  of  disloyalty  or  of 
disloyal  tendencies,  contrasted  the  attacks  of  the  Democrats 
upon  the  administration  with  their  tender  treatment  of  the 
rebels,  and  emphasized  the  effect  which  a  Democratic  vic 
tory  in  this  State  would  have  in  Europe  and  in  the  South. 
They  defended  the  administration  and  its  measures — includ 
ing  the  Emancipation  Proclamation — avowed  their  inten 
tion  of  upholding  the  government  in  whatever  it  did  to 
suppress  the  rebellion,  and  urged  the  voters  to  let  the  Presi 
dent  feel  that  the  Empire  State  was  behind  him. 

The  fact  that  the  Democratic  platform  contained  a  plank 
favoring  peace  through  conciliation,  following  a  reiteration 
of  the  resolutions  in  favor  of  prosecuting  the  war  adopted 
in  1862,  scarcely  satisfied  the  peace  extremists,  whose  lead 
ing  organ,  the  New  York  Daily  News,  openly  repudiated  the 
platform.  This  paper  noted  with  satisfaction  that  at  the 
great  Democratic  mass-meeting  in  New  York  City  on  the 
Saturday  before  election,  no  war  resolution  was  passed,  and 
said  that  the  peace  men  could  therefore  conscientiously  vote 
for  the  Democratic  nominees  without  endorsing  a  war 
policy.1  But  the  World  of  the  same  date  declared  that  the 
Democrats  of  the  State  had  never  faltered  in  their  support 
of  the  war  for  the  restoration  of  the  Union,  and  that  the 
question  of  peace  or  war  was  not  involved  in  the  election 
at  hand.2  The  speech  of  Seymour  at  this  same  meeting 

1  New  York  News,  quoted  by  the  Tribune,  Nov.  3. 

2  New  York  World,  Nov.  2.    Replying  to  the  News,  the  Argus  also 
declared  that  "  Seymour  was  never  the  candidate  of  a  '  Peace  Party ' " 
(Argus,  Sept.  19). 


346       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [546 

showed  him  in  the  ambiguous  role  with  which  his  party  was 
rightly  charged  by  its  opponents.  He  affirmed  that  the 
Union  must  be  saved  and  that  he  was  in  favor  of  prosecut 
ing  the  war.  But  he  also  said : 

When  we  obtained  such  signal  victories  at  Vicksburg  and 
Port  Hudson  all  the  world  thought  that  this  contest  was  to  be 
terminated.  .  .  .  We  called  upon  the  government  ...  at  this 
moment  when  every  motive  of  magnanimity,  honor  and  patriot 
ism  demanded  it,  that  they  should  come  forth  and  offer  terms 
to  the  other  party ;  .  .  .  Why  is  it  that  this  war  is  so  strangely 
prolonged  ? 

And  he  answered,  to  bring  about  centralization  at  Wash 
ington.1  In  truth,  the  Democrats  were  attempting  to 
carry  water  on  both  shoulders;  opposing  the  administra 
tion  yet  sustaining  its  principal  undertaking;  in  favor  of 
ending  the  war,  yet  claiming  that  they  were  for  its  vigorous 
prosecution;  and  Seymour's  speech  only  reflected  the  diffi 
cult  position  of  the  party.  The  Unionists  flatly  opposed 
this  peace-through-conciliation  idea  with  declarations  in 
favor  of  war  to  exhaustion.  There  could  be  no  compromise 
with  slavery  and  with  traitors,  said  one.2  "  Such  a  peace  as 
is  worth  anything,"  another  averred,  "  can  only  be  obtained 
by  discarding  all  thoughts  of  '  conciliation  '  and  crushing  the 
rebellion  until  it  is  dead  ...  we  have  no  alternative  but  to 
fight  it  out  to  the  bitter  end.  We  cannot  afford  to  '  pause  ' 
or  to  '  conciliate.'  "  3 

As  new  issues,  there  were  the  indemnity  clause  of  the 
act  for  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,*  the 

1  Herald,  Nov.  i.     Similar  sentiments  are  embodied  in  his  speech  at 
Buffalo,  printed  in  full  in  the  Argus,  Oct.  29. 

2  H.  B.  Stanton,  Herald,  Sept.  23. 

8  Lyman  Tremain,  Herald,  Oct.  24. 

4  For  this  see  the  Annual  Cyclopedia  for  1863,  p.  256. 


547]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  347 

draft,  and  the  alleged  interference  of  the  military  in  elec 
tions,  all  of  which  were  sweepingly  condemned  by  the 
Democrats,  while  the  Unionists  defended  the  first  two.  But 
above  all,  the  voters  were  called  upon  to  pass  judgment 
upon  Seymour's  record  as  governor.  Unionist  newspapers 
and  speakers  assailed  him  for  vetoing  the  soldiers'  voting 
bill.  They  asserted  that,  after  having  been  elevated  to 
power  by  a  pretense  of  devotion  to  the  war,  he  had  em 
barrassed  the  national  government;  that  his  actions  had 
tended  to  weaken  it  and  defeat  its  efforts  to  suppress  the 
rebellion;  and  that  he  had  prevented  the  reinforcement  of 
the  army.  They  declared  that  he  and  .other  leading  Demo 
crats  had  misrepresented  the  conscription  act  and  par 
ticularly  the  three-hundred-dollar  exemption  clause,  which 
latter  was  defended  as  a  provision  mitigating  the  severity 
of  the  law.  They  condemned  the  efforts  of  Democratic 
local  authorities  to  procure  the  release  of  all  drafted  men 
by  paying  exemption  fees  out  of  public  funds.  Seymour's 
course  toward  the  rioters  was  denounced  in  no  mild  terms. 
Lyman  Tremain,  descanting  upon  the  Governor's  speech  to 
the  crowd  in  City  Hall  Park,  said : 

Here  was  a  scene  for  the  painter!  The  Governor  of  this 
powerful  State  standing  before  a  mob  whose  hands  were  red 
with  the  blood  of  their  murdered  victims,  alarmed  at  the  storm 
which  had  been  raised,  promising  to  do  what  he  could  to  give 
them  the  victory  over  law — sanctioning  by  implication  the 
miserable  notion  that  the  law  discriminated  between  the  rich 
and  the  poor,  and  pledging  himself  to  raise  money  to  relieve 
them  from  the  effects  of  the  law !  x 

Further,  the  Unionists  made  much  of  Seymour's  refusal  to 

1  Herald,  Oct.  24.  The  Albany  Evening  Journal  published  long  edi 
torials  on  "Governor  Seymour's  Friends"  (Oct.  9)  and  "Democracy 
and  Mob  Law"  (Oct.  17). 


348       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [548 

cooperate  with  General  Dix  in  enforcing  the  law,  and  de 
clared  that  the  Governor's  course,  by  necessitating  the  with 
drawal  of  thousands  of  men  from  Meade's  army,  had  en 
abled  Lee  to  detach  reinforcements  to  Bragg,  resulting  in 
Rosecrans  being  driven  back.  The  Democrats  in  reply 
pointed  to  the  Governor's  ready  response  to  Lincoln's  pro 
clamation  calling  for  more  troops  in  the  middle  of  October,1 
to  the  16,000  volunteers  raised  in  New  York  State  during 
Seymour's  year  of  office,2  and  to  the  militia  which  he  had 
sent  to  the  rescue  of  Pennsylvania.  "  The  head  of  the  War 
Department,"  said  Judge  Amasa  Parker,  "  cannot  so  soon 
have  forgotten  the  fervent  appeals  he  made  to  the  demo 
cratic  Governor  of  this  State  for  aid  ...  nor  the  prompt 
ness  with  which  it  was  furnished,  nor  the  profusion  of  his 
thankfulness  expressed  to  Governor  Seymour  upon  that 
occasion."  8 

A  noteworthy  fact  about  the  campaign  was  the  general 
substitution  of  the  name  "  Union  "  for  the  old  party  ap 
pellation  "  Republican."  The  state  convention  was  sum 
moned  under  the  name  "  Union,"  and  was  so  denomi 
nated  by  the  party  orators.  Administration  supporters 
called  their  ratification  meetings  "  Union  "  meetings,  their 
county  conventions  "  Union  "  conventions,  their  party  jour- 

1  Under  date  of  Oct.  20,  Seymour  issued  a  proclamation  supporting 
the   President's   call    and   appealing   to    the   people   of    New    York   to 
give    "  prompt    and    voluntary    assistance "    so    as    to    avoid    a    draft 
(Printed  in  the  Herald,  Oct.  21). 

2  The  Tribune   (Oct.  9)   claimed  that  of  the  troops  raised  by  New 
York  State  during  the  first  six  months  of  Seymour's  administration, 
less  than  3,000  had  been  raised  by  him,  the  rest  being  obtained  with 
out  his  intervention  by  United  States  officers. 

3  Herald,  Oct.  22.     See  also  Seymour's  Buffalo  speech  (Argus,  Oct. 
29)  and  his  Syracuse  speech   (Argus,  Oct.  30)   for  the  same  defense; 
also  various  Argus  editorials,  e.  g.  Oct.  15,  20. 


549]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  349 

nals  the  "  Union  "  press,  and  their  candidates  the  "  Union  " 
nominees.  Moreover,  the  Republican  Central  Committee  of 
New  York  City  in  September  formally  changed  its  name  to 
the  Union  Central  Committee,  and  the  various  ward  asso 
ciations  followed  suit.1  In  the  spring  of  1862,  the  Albany 
Evening  Journal  classified  the  results  of  the  town  elec 
tions  for  the  most  part  under  the  headings  "  Republican  " 
and  "  Democrat;"  only  in  a  few  cases,  did  it  use  the  desig 
nation  "  Union."  In  February  and  March,  1863,  however, 
this  paper  adopted  for  the  same  purpose  the  terms  "Republi 
can-Union  "  and  "  Democrat."  In  1864,  it  used  only  the 
names  "  Union  "  and  "  Democrat."  Similar  changes  took 
place  in  the  vocabulary  of  its  editorials.  The  Democrats, 
nevertheless,  generally  persisted  in  calling  their  adversaries 
Republicans. 

1863  was  an  off  year  in  New  York  State.  No  gov 
ernor  was  to  be  voted  for,  nor  would  the  legislature  then 
chosen  elect  in  the  ordinary  course  of  events  a  United 
States  senator.  But  the  campaign  was  felt  to  be  a  sort 
of  preparatory  test  for  the  presidential  struggle  of  the 
next  year.  The  Democrats  apparently  imported  no  dis 
tinguished  men  from  without  the  State,  their  stump  speak 
ers  being  mainly  New  Yorkers — Seymour,  ex-Governor 
Hunt,  Judge  Parker,  Oakey  Hall,  James  Brooks,  James 
S.  Thayer,  Darius  A.  Ogden,  Eli  P.  Norton,  and  Gilbert 
Dean.  The  Unionists,  on  the  other  hand,  brought  into 
requisition  the  most  prominent  men  of  their  party,  not  only 
from  this  State  but  from  the  North  generally.  Thus 
Unionist  meetings  were  addressed  by  Vice-President  Ham- 
lin;  Governors  Yates,  Curtin,  and  Andrew;  ex-Governors 
Lane  of  Indiana,  Boutwell  of  Massachusetts,  and  Randall  of 

1  Various  advertisements  of  the  different  ward  associations  in  the 
Tribune,  Oct.  5. 


350       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [550 

Wisconsin;  Senators  Wilson,  Chandler,  Hale,  and  Howard; 
Galusha  A.  Grow,  late  speaker  of  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  ;  Schuyler  Colfax,  Ashley  and  Bingham  of  Ohio, 
Washburne  of  Illinois,  Henry  Winter  Davis,  John  W.  For 
ney,  Green  Clay  Smith,  and  General  Sigel;  while  of  New 
York  men,  the  Unionists  included  among  their  speakers 
Lyman  Tremain,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  George  William 
Curtis,  Chauncey  M.  Depew,  United  States  Senators  Mor 
gan  and  Harris,  Henry  J.  Raymond  and  H.  B.  Stanton.1 
Just  before  the  election,  Seward  addressed  his  neighbors  at 
Auburn.  Many  of  the  Unionists  mentioned  above  spoke 
daily  for  several  weeks,  so  that  a  determined  effort  was  made 
by  supporters  of  the  administration  to  reverse  the  verdict 
of  the  previous  year. 

The  adherents  of  that  party  were  greatly  encouraged  by 
the  results  of  the  October  elections  in  Ohio  and  Pennsyl 
vania.2  Then  came  a  new  call  by  the  President  for  300,00x3 
men,  with  the  prospect  of  another  draft.  The  Argus  pub 
lished  numerous  editorials  on  the  latter  subject.  That  of 
October  23rd  said : 

The  Proclamation  of  the  President,  calling  for  another  levy 
of  troops,  sounds  upon  the  ears  of  the  people  "  like  a  fire  bell 
in  the  night."  Worse  still,  like  one  of  those  alarms  at  night, 
which  on  the  apparent  close  of  a  great  conflagration,  gives 
signal  that  the  fire  has  broken  out  anew,  and  in  a  fresh  place. 
.  .  .  The  impression  which  the  Presidential  Proclamation  has 
given  in  the  interior  of  the  State,  we  learn,  is  one  of  de 
spondency.  ...  It  closes  the  prospect  of  easy  victory,  which 

1  The  names  of  the  Democrats  are  taken  from  lists  of  speakers  in 
the  Argus  and  from  accounts  of  Democratic  meetings;  the  Unionist 
speakers  for  the  most  part  from  the  lists  of  Union  meetings  published 
in  the  Tribune  from  day  to  day. 

2  See  Herald  of  Oct.  15  and  23  for  rejoicings  in  Buffalo,  Oswego, 
and  New  York  City. 


55 1  ]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  351 

a  while  ago  had  loomed  up  before  our  eyes.  It  shows  us  the 
Army  of  Virginia  retreating  back  over  the  ground  it  has  thrice 
passed  on  its  way  from  Bull  Run.  It  shows  us  the  Army  of 
the  Southwest  paralyzed,  and  its  general  removed.  It  shows 
Charleston,  Mobile,  and  the  blockaded  ports  of  the  South,  still 
intact.  If  the  war  is  to  be  protracted  indefinitely,  .  .  .  what 
is  to  be  the  end? 

An  editorial  of  November  3rd  in  the  same  paper,  entitled 
"The  Draft  from  New  York — 108,000  More  Men,"  said: 

No  question  of  greater  moment  was  ever  presented  to  a 
people.  ...  If  this  number  do  not  volunteer,  they  must  be 
forced  into  the  army  even  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet.  It  is 
a  question  that  involves  the  happiness  of  every  family;  and 
the  prosperity  of  the  whole  people.  .  .  .  Let  every  patriotic 
citizen  turn  out  to  vote  them  [the  Republicans]  down. 

A  circular  was  issued  by  the  Democratic  State  Committee, 
claiming  that  those  who  had  paid  the  three^hundred-dollar 
exemption  fee  were  liable  to  be  immediately  drafted 
again ;  but  this  was  at  once  contradicted  from  Washington.1 
Such  utterances  as  those  of  the  Argus,  copied  as  they  prob 
ably  were  by  the  whole  up-State  Democratic  press,  very 
likely  had  a  political  effect  beneficial  to  the  Democrats.  In 
New  York  City  and  Brooklyn,  however,  the  prospect  of 
another  draft  hurt  the  Democrats,  owing  to  the  great  de 
crease  caused  thereby  in  the  issuance  of  naturalization  papers 
—usually  very  brisk  before  election.2 

In  the  first  week  in  November  many  soldiers  were  fur- 
loughed,  permitting  them  to  go  home  and  vote.  The  num 
ber  of  those  who  left  Washington  for  middle  and  central 
New  York  was  estimated  at  from  16,000  to  1 8,000. 3  The 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  vii,  pp.  39-40. 

2  Herald,  Oct.  9.  3  Herald,  Nov.  i,  Washington  dispatch. 


352       N£J^  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [552 

Democrats  denounced  this.1  The  Tribune,  in  reply,  de 
fended  it,  saying  that  those  furloughed  were  nearly  all  sick 
or  wounded  men,  that  the  leaves  of  absence  had  been  given 
without  regard  to  party  affiliations,  and  that  the  allegations 
that  conditions  of  a  political  nature  were  attached  to  the 
furloughs  were  false.2  Seward  likewise  declared  that  in 
view  of  Seymour's  refusal  to  sign  the  soldiers'  voting  bill, 
the  action  of  the  authorities  in  this  matter  was  entirely  jus 
tifiable  and  that  the  objection  was  "  disloyal  as  well  as  un 
grateful."  3  Another  fact  to  be  considered  was  the  muster 
ing  out  during  the  previous  May  and  June  of  thirty-eight 
two-year  New  York  regiments.4  So  that  despite  the  Gov 
ernor's  veto,  a  portion  of  the  "  soldier  vote "  was  cast. 
These  men  must  have  been  an  important  factor  in  the  elec 
tion.  Then  too,  the  military  situation  was  far  more  favor 
able  to  supporters  of  the  administration  than  a  year  before. 
The  result  was  the  success  of  the  Union  ticket  by  about 
30,000  majority.5  Seymour's  majority  of  1862  was  more 
than  wiped  out  by  Democratic  losses  in  New  York  City 
alone.  Kings  County  also  showed  a  heavy  decrease  in  the 
same  direction,  while  among  the  counties  that  went  over  to 
the  Unionists  was  Rensselaer,  which  contained  the  city  of 
Troy  where  the  draft  had  caused  a  disturbance.  These 
facts  perhaps  indicate  that  the  riots  had  a  large  share  in 
producing  the  result.  The  State  as  a  whole,  compared 

1  Argus,  Nov.  2,  3;  New  York  Express,  quoted  in  the  Tribune,  Nov.  5. 

z  Tribune,  Nov.  3;  similar  defense,  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct.  31. 
The  Argus  (Nov.  3)  asserted  that  furloughs  were  granted  only  after 
ascertaining  the  politics  of  the  applicants ;  and  that  the  latter  were  dis 
tinctly  pledged  to  vote  against  the  Democrats  or  refused  transportation. 

3  Herald,  Nov.  6. 

*  Herald,  April  27;  Tribune,  April  26.  Some  men,  however,  prob 
ably  re-enlisted  as  large  bounties  were  offered. 

5  Albany  Evening  Journal  Almanac,  1864. 


553]  SEYMOUR  ON  TRIAL  353 

with  1862,  showed  a  Democratic  loss  of  over  21,000,  and  a 
Unionist  gain  of  over  18,000.  These  figures  might  be  inter 
preted  as  showing  that  thousands  of  those  who  had  voted 
for  Seymour  in  1862  voted  for  the  Union  ticket  in  1863, 
thus  condemning  his  course.  Or  if  the  diminution  in  the 
Democratic  vote  be  taken  as  a  natural  decrease  in  an  off 
year,  the  fact  that  the  Unionists  actually  gained  18,000 
instead  of  suffering  a  loss  of  approximately  the  same  size 
as  their  opponents,  may  be  ascribed  to  the  furloughed  and 
mustered-out  soldiers,  plus  Weed  followers  who  had  in  1862 
either  voted  for  Seymour  or  remained  away  from  the  polls. 
Probably,  all  of  these  factors  influenced  the  outcome.  That 
the  total  vote  fell  off  but  three  thousand  compared  with 
the  year  before,  shows  the  great  interest  taken  in  the  subject. 
In  the  metropolis,  however,  more  attention  was  given  to 
the  contest  for  the  mayoralty  which  occurred  in  December. 
Some  5,000  votes  in  excess  of  the  number  cast  at  the  state 
election  were  polled.  In  October  Tammany  and  Mozart, 
despite  the  boasted  war  character  of  the  former  and  the  peace 
doctrines  of  the  latter,  made  a  formal  agreement  for  a  fu 
sion.1  In  accordance  with  this  compact,  the  assembly,  sena 
torial,  and  judicial  nominations  had  been  divided.2  Judges 
Bosworth,  Hilton,  and  McCarthy  were  all  refused  renomin- 
ations  by  the  allied  Halls ; 3  and  two  of  these  places  were 
given  respectively  to  McCunn,  who  was  noted  for  his  dis 
loyal  sentiments,  and  Cardozo,  who  later  became  involved 
in  the  Tweed  scandal.  The  Tammany-Mozart  ticket  was 

1  This  agreement  was  printed  in  the  Herald  of  Oct.  13.     It  was  signed 
by   Peter   B.   Sweeney   on  the   part  of   Tammany,    and   by   Fernando 
Wood  and  John  K.  Hackett  on  the  part  of  Mozart. 

2  Herald,  Oct.  15. 

3  Herald,  Oct.  25 ;  Tribune,  Oct.  9. 


354       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [554 

successful  in  November.  A  great  surprise,  however,  came 
at  the  charter  election  in  the  following  month.  Many 
Democrats  were  highly  dissatisfied  with  such  bargaining.1 
Determined  efforts  were  made  to  nominate  General  Dix  for 
mayor,  but  he  refused  to  allow  his  name  to  be  used  in  that 
connection.2  The  Unionists  then  selected  Orison  Blunt  for 
their  candidate.  The  McKeon  Democracy  had  already  put 
forth  C.  Godfrey  Gunther,  who  had  been  the  Tammany 
nominee  for  the  same  office  two  years  before.  Tammany 
and  Mozart  united  on  Francis  I.  A.  Boole,  a  leading  figure 
in  the  aldermanic  ring.  The  campaign  was  in  contrast  with 
others  of  this  period  in  that  national  issues  once  more  were 
subordinated  to  local  matters.  Although  the  McKeonites 
had  been  shut  out  from  the  last  state  convention  and  had 
polled  only  about  four  thousand  votes  in  November,  Gun 
ther  was  elected  by  about  6,500  plurality.  The  result  was 
interpreted  as  a  repudiation  of  the  Tammany  and  Mozart 
machines  and  as  a  vote  against  government  by  bargain  and 
in  favor  of  an  honest  judiciary. 

1  Herald,  Oct.  15;  article  on  "City  Politics,"  Herald,  Oct.  25;  the 
World,  Nov.  2,  condemned  "  the  disgraceful  huckstering  .  .  .  which 
foisted  into  the  Tammany-Mozart  ticket  the  name  of  John  F.  Mc- 
Cunn ;"  see  also  speeches  at  the  mass-meeting  of  the  "  Representative 
Democracy,"  Herald,  Oct.  28. 

3  A  committee,  including  John  Jacob  Astor  and  R.  B.  Roosevelt, 
visted  Washington  to  interview  Lincoln  on  the  subject  of  Dix's 
nomination  (Herald,  Nov.  11,  13).  The  President,  it  seems,  declined 
to  interfere;  soon  after,  a  meeting  of  Democrats  "desirous  of  effect 
ing  a  reform  in  the  Democratic  party  in  this  city"  was  held  and  a 
public  meeting  to  nominate  Dix  determined  on  (Herald,  advertise 
ment,  Nov.  17). 


CHAPTER  XIII 
THE  LEGISLATIVE  SESSION  OF  1864 

GOVERNOR  SEYMOUR'S  annual  message  of  1864  was  of  the 
same  character  as  that  of  the  previous  year.  Again  the 
greater  portion  of  the  document *  was  devoted  to  national 
affairs,  and  this  part  was  largely  made  up  of  hostile  criticism 
of  the  administration  at  Washington  and  of  Congress ;  nor 
did  Seymour  refrain  from  discussing  at  length  topics  which 
did  not  directly  concern  the  government  of  the  State  of 
New  York.  The  national  banking  law  was  briefly  con 
demned,  and  legislation  to  protect  the  state  banks  was  ad 
vised.  On  the  subjects  of  the  enrolment  and  the  draft,  the 
Governor  expressed  the  views  to  which  he  had  already  given 
utterance.  He  included  statistics  designed  to  show  that, 
while  the  average  ratio  of  enrolment  to  male  population  was 
higher  in  New  York  than  elsewhere,  it  was  lowest  in  New 
England, — a  section  for  which  he,  like  other  Democrats,  dis 
played  a  marked  aversion.  Overlooking  the  fact  that  volun 
teering  and  substituting  were  promoted  by  drafting,  the 
Governor  contrasted  the  aggregate  of  conscripts  obtained 
from  New  York  State,  2,557,  with  the  volunteers  raised 
within  its  borders  during  the  year — a  number  which  by  the 
inclusion  of  substitutes  and  reenlistments  in  the  field,  was  in 
creased  to  over  56,000.  Seymour  concluded  from  these 
figures  that  the 

attempt  to  fill  our  armies  by  drafting  was  abortive.    While  it 

1  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  520-561. 

555]  355 


356       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [556 

gave  no  useful  result,  it  disturbed  the  public  mind,  it  carried 
anxiety  and  perplexity  into  the  workshops,  the  fields,  and  the 
homes  of  our  citizens  ...  it  produces  discontent  in  the  ser 
vice;  it  is  opposed  to  the  genius  of  our  political  system;  it 
alienates  our  people  from  the  Government;  it  is  injurious  to 
the  industrial  pursuits  of  the  country. 

All  this,  however,  was  not  the  worst.  The  Governor 
imagined  that  some  sort  of  a  military  dictatorship  would  be 
the  result  of  the  continued  use  of  conscription.  "  If  soldiers 
are  to  be  raised  by  coercion,"  he  said, 

in  a  little  time  the  mass  of  our  armies  will  be  made  up  of  con 
scripts.  .  .  .  [This]  will  tell  directly  upon  the  policy  of  the 
Government,  as  by  the  laws  of  several  States  they  [the  sol 
diers]  are  invited  to  vote  in  local  and  general  elections  in 
distant  fields,  in  ways  adapted  to  their  organized  and  military 
condition  there.  A  new  influence,  acting  in  an  unusual  form, 
is  thus  created  in  the  conduct  of  affairs.  .  .  .  While  the 
President,  as  Commander-in-Chief,  controls  the  army,  the 
unanimous  political  action  of  the  army  will  make  the  Presi 
dent. 

Then  the  Governor  made  a  plea  for  strengthening  the  militia 
of  the  states  as  the  constitutional  force  of  the  country. 

In  reviewing  the  measures  of  Congress  and  of  the  Presi 
dent  during  the  year  past,  Seymour  correctly  diagnosed  the 
situation  when  he  asserted  that  their  acts  went  "  far  toward 
destroying  the  rights  of  the  States  and  centralizing  all  power 
at  the  National  capital;"  and  he  quite  justly  remarked  that 
"  These  proceedings  of  Congress  and  the  action  of  the 
Executive  and  military  officials  have  wrought  a  revolution. 
...  At  this  time,  then,  we  are  living  under  a  military  gov 
ernment,  which  claims  that  its  highest  prerogatives  spring 
from  martial  law  and  military  necessities."  The  Ameri- 


557]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1864  357 

can  people  must  decide  in  calmer  hours  whether  this 
revolution  should  be  permanent.  Meanwhile,  the  country 
was  threatened  with  national  bankruptcy  and  national  ruin, 
and  the  time  must  come  when  the  averting  of  these  calamities 
would  have  to  be  considered.  The  Governor  advanced  as 
the  proper  solution  of  the  impending  difficulties,  "  wise 
statesmanship  "  and  a  "  conciliatory  policy  "  so  that  the  war 
might  be  ended  in  accordance  with  the  principles  laid  down 
in  the  Crittenden  resolution;  and  here  he  entered  into  a 
lengthy  condemnation  of  the  radical  plan  of  reconstruction 
so  far  as  it  was  then  developed. 

Lincoln's  ten  per  cent  plan  1  met  with  even  more  severe 
criticism  at  Seymour's  hands.  "A  demand  is  made,"  said 
the  message, 

that  the  people  of  the  South  shall  swear  to  abide  by  a  proc 
lamation  put  forth  with  reluctance,  and  which  is  objected  to 
by  a  large  share  of  Northern  people.  .  .  .  They  [the  Southern 
people]  are  to  take  an  oath  to  which  no  reputable  citizen  of 
the  North  of  any  party  will  subscribe:  that  they  will  uphold 
any  future  proclamations  relating  to  slavery.  They  are  to  sub 
mit  themselves  to  uttered  and  unuttered  opinions  and  decrees. 

The  ten  per  cent  would  maintain  themselves  in  power  by 
the  arms  and  treasure  of  the  North. 

The  nine  States  thus  controlled  would  balance  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  in  the  choice  of  the  President  and  at  all 
times  in  the  Senate,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Illinois, 
Indiana,  Massachusetts,  Missouri,  Kentucky  and  Wisconsin, 
with  a  united  population  of  16,533,383.  .  .  .  The  one-tenth 
who  would  accept  the  Proclamation  for  the  price  of  power, 
would  not  only  govern  the  States  made  by  Executive  decrees, 

1  For  this  plan,  see  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  iv,  p.  484. 


358       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [55$ 

but  they  would  also  govern  the  North.  .  .  .  Less  than  70,000 
...  in  the  nine  States  .  .  .  would  wield  a  power  sufficient 
to  weigh  down  that  of  the  nine  most  populous  States  in  the 
Union.  We  should  thus  have  ...  a  system  of  rotten  bor 
oughs. 

This,  Seymour  continued,  would  destroy  the  representative 
nature  of  our  government  and  enable  an  administration  to 
perpetuate  itself.  Moreover,  said  he, 

every  measure  to  convert  the  war  against  armed  rebellion  into 
one  against  private  property  and  personal  rights  at  the  South, 
has  been  accompanied  by  claims  to  exercise  military  power  in 
the  loyal  States  of  the  North.  .  .  .  new  and  more  extreme 
claims  to  arbitrary  power  are  put  forth  when  it  is  declared 
that  the  strength  of  the  rebellion  is  broken. 

The  conclusion  was  drawn  that  the  doctrine  of  "  Southern 
disorganization  and  revolution "  would  result  in  national 
bankruptcy  and  ruin,  "  lasting  military  despotism  over  one- 
third  of  our  country,  which  will  be  the  basis  for  military 
despotism  over  the  whole  land,"  no  return  of  the  soldiers, 
crushing  burdens  upon  labor  and  industry,  an  opening  of  a 
"  wide  and  lasting  field  for  peculation  and  fraud/'  the  per 
petuation  of  "  power  by  making  and  unmaking  States,"  and 
the  production  of  "  internal  disorder  "  and  "  national  weak 
ness  in  our  external  relations." 

This  condensation  may  give  an  idea  of  the  Governor's 
extended  criticism,  the  whole  forming  a  document  which 
deserves  to  be  ranked  as  a  leading  expression  of  the  op 
position  during  the  war.  One  looks  in  vain  for  any  re 
cognition  of  the  vast  difficulties  which  confronted  those 
governing  and  legislating  at  Washington.  Governor  Sey 
mour  was  a  conscientious  man,  and  he  doubtless  intended 
that  his  message  should  be  a  solemn  warning  to  those  in 


559]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1864  359 

power.  Instead,  it  served  as  a  text  for  many  partisan 
speeches  in  the  Legislature,1  and  whatever  influence  the 
document  had  in  moulding  public  opinion  among  the  mass 
of  Democrats  was  not  in  the  direction  of  holding  them  firm 
in  the  support  of  the  war.  Thus,  Seymour's  attitude  as 
shown  in  the  message  approached  that  of  Fernando  Wood. 
There  was,  however,  a  practical  difference  between  the  posi 
tion  of  Seymour  and  that  of  the  peace  faction.  The  form 
er's  hostile  views  of  the  administration,  his  complaints  at 
the  way  in  which  the  war  was  being  carried  on,  and  his 
declaration  in  favor  of  bringing  the  struggle  to  a  termina 
tion  by  means  of  "wise  statesmanship"  did  not  prevent  him 
from  issuing  a  circular  letter 2  to  the  various  local  officials 
urging  them  to  "  enter  immediately  upon  the  duty  of  raising 
by  voluntary  enlistments  the  quota "  of  their  respective 
districts,  and  from  tendering  to  the  war  department  the 
use  of  the  militia  to  garrison  the  forts  around  New  York 
City.3  Probably  the  circular  was  prompted  by  a  desire  to 
avoid  another  draft,  and  the  offer  of  the  state  troops  by  a 
wish  to  bring  them  to  greater  efficiency.  Nevertheless,  such 
acts  entitle  Seymour  to  a  place  in  history  distinct  from  that 
of  the  peace  faction. 

The  Legislature  of  1864  was  a  notable  improvement  upon 
the  preceding  one,  and  on  the  whole,  made  a  good  record.4 
The  Senate  consisted  of  twenty-one  Union  members  and 
eleven  Democrats;  the  Assembly,  of  eighty-two  Unionists 
and  forty-six  Democrats.5  The  Unionists  having  an  over 
whelming  majority,  the  lower  house  was  quietly  organized 

1  Argus,  Jan.  22,  23,  28,  29;  Feb.  4,  5,  6,  12,  13,  18;  Mar.  4,  n,  18,  25; 
April  8,  13,  15- 

2  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Dec.  9,  1863. 

3  Tribune,  April  23 ;  Argus,  April  23. 

4  Herald,  April  29.  5  Argus,  Jan.  4. 


360       NEIV  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [560 

by  the  election  of  Thomas  G.  Alvord  as  speaker,1  an  office 
which  he  had  already  held. 

The  Unionists  immediately  took  up  the  matter  of  the 
soldiers'  vote;  for  it  was  realized  that  dispatch  was  neces 
sary  if  the  volunteers  were  to  vote  at  the  ensuing  presidential 
election.  As  the  Democrats  were  committed  to  the  con 
stitutional  amendment  already  passed  by  the  previous  legis 
lature,  and  as  any  direct  attempt  on  their  part  to  block 
action  on  this  subject  would  have  merely  created  party 
capital  for  their  opponents,  there  was  no  opposition  to  the 
second  passage  of  the  amendment;  and  thus  it  had  gone 
through  both  houses  without  a  dissenting  vote  before  the 
session  was  a  fortnight  old.2  By  the  middle  of  February, 
a  bill  providing  for  a  special  election  on  March  8th,  at 
which  the  amendment  should  be  submitted  to  the  people, 
was  passed  unanimously  and  signed.3  The  result  was 
258,795  votes  for  the  proposed  change  to  48,079  against  it.4 
The  Union  members  at  once  pressed  on  with  a  bill  to  give 
effect  to  the  new  provision  of  the  constitution.  While  some 
of  the  Democrats  preferred  the  appointment  of  commis 
sioners  by  the  Governor  and  the  Comptroller  to  visit  the 
camps,  fleets,  and  hospitals  and  collect  the  soldiers'  and 

1  Alvord,   77,   Jacob   L.    Smith  42;    George   M.    Curtis    i    (Assembly 
Journal,  1864,  p.  6). 

2  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  42 ;  Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  54. 

3  The  Democrats  in  the  Senate  tried  in  vain  to  have  submitted  at 
the  same  time  another  amendment  providing  for  the  appointment  of 
commissioners  to  assist  the  Court  of  Appeals.     The  Unionists  voted 
this  down.     The  Democrats  charged  that  the  reason  therefor  was  that 
submission  then  would  give  Seymour  an  opportunity  to  appoint  Demo 
cratic  commissioners.     Other  than  this,  there  was  apparently  no  party 
debate  (Herald,  Feb.  6;  Argus,  Feb.  6;  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  242; 
Senate  Journal,  1864,  pp.  135,  136,  144). 

4  Herald,  Mar.  26. 


56 1 ]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1864  361 

sailors'  proxies,1  whereas  the  Unionists  generally  favored  the 
plan  of  the  bill  vetoed  by  Seymour  in  1863,  the  debates 
showed  little  partisan  feeling.  There  was  apparently  on  both 
sides  a  disposition  to  enact  a  measure  which  would  leave  no 
loopholes  for  frauds.2  In  April,  a  bill  providing  that  quali 
fied  voters  in  the  service  might  transmit  by  mail  their 
proxies  to  a  friend  or  to  the  inspectors  of  election  was 
passed,  though  with  fifteen  Democrats  in  the  Assembly  vot 
ing  against  it.3  There  was  some  doubt  whether  Seymour 
would  give  his  approval  and  whether  he  would  not  at  least 
ask  for  changes.  The  Governor,  however,  finally  signed 
the  bill  as  passed,4  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  was 
similar  to  the  measure  vetoed  by  him  in  i863.5 

More  party  spirit  was  manifested  on  the  question  of  militia 
appropriations.  An  act  of  1862  provided  for  a  reorganiza 
tion  of  the  state  military  forces,  which  then  numbered  about 
25,000,  and  for  the  creation,  under  the  governor's  direction, 
of  a  huge  national  guard.  During  1863,  eighteen  regiments 
had  been  organized  and  completed  by  Seymour  and  his  staff, 
while  officers  for  fifty-six  more  had  been  appointed.6  When 
an  appropriation  for  $200,000  for  the  militia  came  up  in  the 
Legislature  of  1864,  the  Unionists  vigorously  assailed  the 
proposition.  They  asserted  that  the  new  organizations 
were  political  machines,  and  that  Copperheads  and  disloyal 
men  had  been  preferred  in  the  distribution  of  commissions. 

1  Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  614.    This  proposition  was  not,  however, 
endorsed  by  all  the  Democrats  nor  by  the  Argus,  which  stated  that  it 
preferred  the  proxy  system  properly  guarded   (Argus,  April  i). 

2  Herald,  April  i,  6,  13 ;  Tribune,  April  i ;  Argus,  April  2,  5,  13. 

3  Herald,  April  6,   14;  Argus,  April  6,   15;  Assembly  Journal,   1864, 
p.  868;  Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  615. 

4  Herald,  April  22;  Argus,  April  22. 

5  Lincoln's  Constitutional  History  of  Neiv  York,  ii,  p.  239. 

6  Report  of  Adj.  Gen.  Sprague,  printed  in  the  Argus,  Feb.  5. 


362       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [562 

Speaker  Alvord  probably  expressed  a  common  feeling  when, 
in  committee  of  the  whole,  he  declared  that  "  he  would  not 
say  that  the  Executive  in  yonder  chamber  would  array  the 
militia  against  the  general  government  .  .  .  ;  but  he  did 
not  believe  it  policy  for  this  Legislature  to  give  him  power 
to  do  it."  1  Then  too,  the  operation  of  the  law  had  proved 
expensive,2  and  a  certain  element  in  the  Union  ranks  there 
fore  favored  no  further  appropriations.  The  Democrats 
denied  the  charges  against  Seymour,  and  affirmed  that  the 
animus  of  the  other  side  was  really  due  to  the  fact  that  a 
Democrat  was  governor,  whereas  the  act  of  1862  was 
passed  in  the  expectation  of  its  being  executed  by  a  Republi 
can.  The  debates  were  quite  bitter.3  In  view,  however,  of 
the  prospect  that  the  state  troops  would  be  called  into  active 
service,  the  Unionists  finally  passed  a  bill  *  which,  while  de 
priving  Seymour  of  the  selection  of  officers  by  restoring  the 
elective  system  and  omitting  all  items  for  a  further  in 
crease,  appropriated  for  the  existing  forces  more  than  the 
sum  originally  named.5 

A  subject  which  aroused  many  partisan  discussions  and 
occupied  much  attention  throughout  this  session  was  the 
matter  of  legalizing  the  debts  contracted  by  counties  in  con 
nection  with  the  draft.  Practically  no  opposition  was 
evinced  to  a  general  bounty  bill,6  which  sanctioned  the  acts 

1  Argus,  Feb.  15. 

2  It  was  intended  that,  by  a  fine  of  one  dollar  upon  all  enrolled  citi 
zens  who  neglected  the  parades  ordered,  the  law  should  pay  for  the  ex 
penses  incurred  by  it;  but  a  subsequent  law  relieved  the  delinquents 
of  the  fine  (Report  of  the  Adjutant  General,  Argus,  Feb.  5). 

3  Tribune,  Feb.  19,  Mar.  3 ;  Argus,  Feb.  15,  18,  Mar.  2,  3,  12,  April 
6,  7,  18. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  1248 ;  Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  825. 

5  Herald,  April  23 ;  Argus,  April  25. 

6  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  229;  Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  119. 


563]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1864  363 

of  boards  of  supervisors  in  raising  money  for  bounties  in 
1863,  authorized  the  levying  of  a  tax  by  each  county  to 
pay  such  debts,  and  made  lawful  bounties  for  filling 
future  quotas.1  The  Unionists,  however,  frowned  on  all 
attempts  to  legalize  debts  incurred  by  counties  which 
paid  the  three-hundred-dollar  commutation  fee  of  those 
drafted,  except  where  such  fee  had  been  paid  only  for  fire 
men  and  policemen.2  The  supervisors  of  Richmond 
County,  for  instance,  were  said  to  have  issued  bonds  with 
whose  proceeds  were  paid  the  exemption  fees  of  every  per 
son  drafted  in  that  county,  thus  producing  no  recruits.  The 
Unionists  claimed  that  to  give  validity  to  such  an  act  was 
disloyal.  The  Democrats  retorted  by  charging  the  other 
side  with  repudiation.3  A  number  of  such  bills  for  various 
counties  were  defeated  by  the  Unionist  majority  or  held  up 
and  only  passed  after  the  removal  of  the  objectionable 
features.4 

The  Governor's  suggestion  to  protect  the  state  banks 
from  the  operation  of  the  national  banking  law  was  not 
without  friends  among  his  political  adversaries.5  The  ma 
jority  of  the  Assembly  committee  on  banks  was  captured 
for  such  a  policy  through  the  defection  of  three  of  the  four 

1  Herald,  Feb.  7;  Argus,  Feb.  8.  Such  opposition  as  appeared  was 
directed  against  the  provision  excluding  from  the  benefits  of  the  bill 
cities  and  towns  which  offered  additional  bounties  of  their  own,  but 
this  opposition  was  apparently  not  of  a  party  character. 

3  Tribune,  Feb.  2,  5,  Mar.  14,  17,  21 ;  Argus,  Feb.  2,  5,  Mar.  14,  15, 
17,  19,  21. 

3  Besides  references  given  in  note  I,  Argus  editorials,  e.  g.  Mar. 
21,  23. 

*  Tribune,  Mar.  21,  31 ;  Argus,  Mar.  19,  21,  30,  April  21. 

6  Comptroller  Robinson  and  Thomas  W.  Olcott  wrote  letters  (printed 
in  the  Argus,  April  12)  virtually  endorsing  the  views  of  the  Assembly 
majority  report. 


364       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [564 

Union  members ;  and  accordingly,  there  was  rendered  a  ma 
jority  report  which  enlivened  legislative  proceedings  dur 
ing  April.  This  report  *  might  well  have  been  a  campaign 
document  for  the  Democrats.  It  declared  that  the  coun 
try  was  suffering  from  a  redundant  irredeemable  paper 
currency,  and  insinuated  that  the  excess  was  chiefly  due 
to  the  government's  issues  of  paper  money  to  an  un 
necessary  extent.  Secretary  Chase  was  assailed  in  no  mild 
terms.  "  During  the  pending  of  the  six  per  cent  loan," 
the  report  read, 

the  receipts  of  the  government  from  conversions  into  stock 
were  quite  equal  to  the  daily  expenditures.  .  .  .  There  are 
cogent  reasons  for  believing  that  this  absorption  might  have 
been  continued  to  the  present  time  had  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  not  been  bitten  with  a  rage  canine  for  borrowing  at 
less  than  six  per  cent.  .  .  .  What  matters  it  that  the  price  of 
all  commodities  should  be  enhanced  and  the  government  and 
people  lose  ten  times  in  cost  what  they  save  in  interest?  Is 
such  a  consideration  to  be  weighed  in  comparison  with  the 
financial  renown  which  must  inure  to  him  who  borrows  at 
less  and  less  interest  the  deeper  the  country  is  plunged  in 
debt? 

The  exemption  of  United  States  securities  from  state  and 
local  taxation  was  strongly  condemned ; 2  and  the  belief 
was  expressed  that  the  people  of  New  York  would  not 
patiently  submit  to  the  shifting  of  taxation  from  the  hun 
dreds  of  millions  invested  in  banks,  insurance  companies, 
and  other  moneyed  corporations  to  property  in  other  forms, 
nor  permit  rival  corporations  enjoying  the  same  privileges 

1  Printed  in  the  Herald,  April  2. 

2  According  to  the  report,  the  state  banks  held  such  securities  to  the 
value  of  one  hundred  and  nine  million  dollars. 


565]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1864  365 

as  the  state  banks  "  to  coolly  repudiate  the  obligation  which 
the  law  imposes  upon  their  fellow  citizens."  The  con 
clusion  was  drawn  that  "  interest,  sound  policy,  and  strict 
justice  alike  demand  that  the  Legislature  should  assert  its 
sovereign  prerogative  in  bringing  all  classes  of  persons 
within  its  scope  of  taxing  powers/' 

When  this  report  was  read,  it  caused  a  commotion  among 
the  Union  members.  After  the  clerk  had  gone  through 
about  a  third  of  it,  a  motion  to  dispense  with  the  further 
reading  of  the  document  was  made  and  carried.  Its  views 
were  denounced  as  disloyal,  and  an  effort  was  made  to 
prevent  it  being  printed.1  A  few  days  later  a  report  of 
the  minority  of  the  banking  committee  was  presented,  in 
favor  of  a  bill  authorizing  the  state  banks  to  organize 
under  the  national  banking  law.2  Two  warm  debates 
ensued,  party  lines  being  tightly  d^rawn  except  for 
the  few  Unionists  who  had  been  won  over  by  the  state 
banking  interests.3  The  committee  on  printing  recom 
mended  the  striking  off  of  four  thousand  extra  copies  of  the 
report  of  the  minority  of  the  banking  committee,  but  only 
so  many  copies  of  the  majority  report — the  language  of 
which  was  characterized  as  semi-disloyal  and  criminal— 
as  the  rules  called  for.  After  heated  argument,  the 
first  proposal  was  carried,  but  the  House  refused  to  have 
any  copies  of  the  majority  report  printed.4  Amid  much 
excitement,5  the  bill  favored  by  the  minority  of  the  banking 

1  Herald,  April  2,  4 ;  Tribune,  April  2 ;  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  pp. 
827-8. 

2  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  921.     The  Argus  daily  attacked  this  bill, 
e.  g.  April  16,  21. 

3  Herald,  April  n;  Tribune,  April  12. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  pp.  1133, 1134, 1135.    For  the  debate,  Herald, 
April  16;  Tribune,  April  18. 

5  Tribune,  April  24;  Herald,  April  21. 


366       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [566 

committee  was  passed  at  a  later  session  by  a  party  vote.1  In 
the  Senate,  pressure  was  apparently  needed  to  bring  three 
Union  members  into  line,  the  measure  at  first  being  rejected 
upon  its  final  reading.2  In  the  afternoon,  however,  the  bill 
was  reconsidered  by  a  strictly  party  vote,  and  in  the  same 
manner  passed  on  the  following  day.3 

The  subject  of  the  payment  of  the  interest  on  the  state 
debt  again  occupied  the  attention  of  the  lawmakers.  In  the 
previous  legislature  the  Unionists,  in  the  face  of  Demo 
cratic  opposition,  had  passed  a  resolution  providing  for  the 
payment  of  interest  in  coin  to  foreign  bondholders  only.  In 
1864,  some  Unionists  desired  that  all  be  paid  in  green 
backs.  Concurrent  resolutions  were  introduced  in  the  Sen 
ate  providing  that  in  paying  principal  and  interest  of  state 
securities  no  discrimination  as  to  the  currency  used  should 
be  made  between  foreign  and  domestic  owners.  This 
gave  rise  to  party  debates.  The  expense  of  premiums 
paid  for  gold,  the  inducement  to  bondholders  to  transfer 
the  securities  to  foreigners,  and  the  fact  that  much  of  the 
debt  held  abroad  was  in  the  hands  of  the  British,  whose 
government  was  charged  with  having  openly  arrayed  itself 

1  Three  Unionists,   two  of  whom  were  among  the   signers  of  the 
majority  report,  voted  with  the  Democrats.     Assembly  Journal,  1864, 
p.  1246. 

2  Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  755. 

3  Senate  Journal,  1864,  pp.  779,  808.     The  bill  failed  to  receive  Gov 
ernor  Seymour's  approval,  but  was  again  passed  in  1865  and  became  a 
law  then  (Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  p.  588  footnote). 
In  the  session  of  1864,  a  resolution  introduced  by  a  Democratic  senator, 
requesting  New  York's  representatives  in  Congress  to  vote  for  the  repeal 
of  the  act  exempting  federal  securities  from  state  taxation  was  buried 
by  a  party  vote   (Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  826)  ;  also  a  bill  compelling 
all  holders  of  U.  S.  securities  to  pay  a  five  per  cent  tax  on  income 
derived  therefrom,  although  passed  in  the  Assembly,  was  side-tracked 
by  a  strictly  party  vote  in  the  Senate    (Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  867; 
Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  1393). 


567]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1864  367 

against  the  United  States,  were  advanced  as  reasons  for 
passing  the  resolutions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Democrats 
argued  that  such  a  policy  would  be  immoral,  dishonorable, 
and  inexpedient.  They  made  efforts  to  have  all  bondhold 
ers  paid  in  gold,  but  this  proposal  was  solidly  opposed  by  the 
Unionists.  The  resolutions  were  then  passed  by  both 
houses,  despite  some  insurgent  Union  members  voting  with 
the  Democrats.1  Thereupon,  the  Governor  sent  in  a  special 
message  advocating  the  payment  in  coin  of  all  interest  on  the 
state  debt  or  of  that  due  the  residents  of  other  countries 
at  least.2  In  the  Senate,  the  message  was  tabled  by  a 
party  vote;8  and  in  the  Assembly,  objection  having  been 
made  to  a  motion  embodying  the  recommendation  and  the 
session  coming  to  a  close,  no  action  on  the  message  was 
taken.4 

Subsequently  Seymour  appealed  to  capitalists,  bankers, 
and  public-spirited  men  to  make  voluntary  subscriptions 
wherewith  gold  might  be  obtained  to  pay  the  interest  in 
specie  to  foreign  bondholders  at  least.5  The  New  York  City 
Chamber  of  Commerce  appointed  a  committee  to  collect 
such  contributions,  and  adopted  a  resolution  declaring  that 
the  welfare  of  New  York  State  demanded  that  both  prin 
cipal  and  interest  of  the  public  debt  should  be  punctually 
paid  in  coin.6  Thus  the  Governor's  position  was  endorsed 
by  the  highest  commercial  interests. 

1  Senate  Journal,   1864,  PP-  285-6 ;   Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.   1 145. 
One  Democrat  in  the  Senate  and  two  in  the  Assembly  voted  with  the 
Unionists. 

2  Lincoln's  Messages  from  the  Governors,  v,  pp.  578-581. 

3  Tribune,  April  25.        *  Argus,  April  25.  5  Argus,  May  2. 

6  Tribune,  May  n.  The  project  was  subsequently  abandoned  when 
the  committee  reported  that  $750,000  would  have  to  be  raised  to  pay  in 
coin  both  interest  and  principal  due  during  that  year  to  foreigners 
(Annual  Report  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  for  1864,  pp.  27,  28). 


368       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [568 

At  this  session,  a  concurrent  resolution  in  favor  of  amend 
ing  the  federal  constitution  to  prohibit  slavery  was  intro 
duced  by  Mr.  Carolus  Bryant,1  a  New  York  City  Democrat, 
evidently  out  of  sympathy  on  this  question  with  the  mass  of 
his  party.  The  resolution  was  passed  in  the  Assembly  just 
before  the  adjournment,  but  the  Senate  failed  to  act  upon 
the  matter.2 

Politicians  in  and  out  of  the  Legislature  were  greatly  in 
terested  in  the  solution  of  the  metropolitan  police  commis 
sion  question.  Seymour  had  hardly  shown  firmness  in  deal 
ing  with  this  subject.  Notwithstanding  the  attempted  re 
moval  of  the  Police  Commissioners  on  the  first  day  of  his 
term  3  and  despite  later  charges  of  a  nature  similar  to  those 
already  described,  and  to  which  the  Governor  had  given  in 
June  ten  days  to  make  answer,4  the  Commissioners  had 
quietly  retained  their  places,  and  had  rendered  most  cred 
itable  services  during  the  draft  riot/'  Their  annual  report 
for  1863  seems  to  have  been  the  immediate  cause  of  stirring 
the  Governor  to  renewed  action.6  Speaking  of  the  riot,  the 
Commissioners  said :  "  These  violent  proceedings  had  a 
political  design  and  direction,  and  received  encouragement 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  737. 

2  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  1418 ;  Herald,  April  27. 

3  Supra,  p.  262. 

4  Herald,  June   5,    1863.     These  later   charges   are   contained  in   the 
same  issue. 

5  Herald,  Jan.  5.     Seymour  himself  later  declared  that  the  riot  was 
suppressed  "  mainly  by  the  energy,  boldness,  and  skill  of  the  Police 
Department"  (Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  vii,  p.  19). 

6  Herald,   Jan.    I.     Though   the   order   of    removal    (printed    in   the 
Herald,  Jan.  3)  gave  as  the  ground  for  that  act  the  charges  mentioned 
above  and  said  nothing  about  the  passage  in  the  report  referring  to 
the  riot,  yet  the  Argus  (Jan.  6)  said  that  the  misconduct  of  the  Com 
missioners  "  was  aggravated  by  the  falsehood  and  impudence  of  their 
official  report,"  and  it  then  quoted  the  passages  given  above. 


569]  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1864  369 

from  newspapers  and  parties  of  influence  and  intelligence;" 
and  they  expressed  satisfaction  that,  although  their  threat 
ened  summary  ejection  had  given  rise  to  cases  of  insubor 
dination  and  although  a  "  large  portion  of  the  force  were 
of  the  same  nationality  and  political  and  religious  faith  as 
the  riotous  mob,"  the  police  had  acted  as  a  unit  during  the 
disturbance.1  Immediately  after  the  appearance  of  this 
document,  Seymour,  although  he  had  not  carried  out  his 
promises  to  give  the  charges  of  the  previous  year  a  "  fair 
and  full  trial  "  and  a  "  thorough  investigation,"  removed 
the  Commissioners  a  second  time  and  appointed  others. 
The  displaced  officials,  however,  refused  to  vacate.2  Thus, 
on  the  eve  of  another  draft  New  York  City  was  threatened 
with  the  ugly  complications  likely  from  a  conflict  over  the 
control  of  the  police — an  experience  which,  in  a  different 
form,  had  produced  dire  results  when  Fernando  Wood  was 
mayor. 

The  question  was  now  taken  up  by  the  legislators,  and  a 
bill  providing  for  a  compromise  in  the  shape  of  a  bi-partisan 
police  board  was  introduced.3  The  names  of  the  two 
Democratic  members  caused  in  the  ranks  of  that  party  a 
split  in  the  Assembly 4  and  a  bitter  family  quarrel  which 
was  waged  both  in  caucus  5  and  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.6 
Tammany  members  desired  these  choice  places  for  Elijah 
F.  Purdy  and  Samuel  Jones,  a  brother-in-law  of  Peter  B. 
Sweeney.  The  up-State  Democrats  stood  by  Seymour  in 

1  Herald,  Jan.  I,  quoting  from  the  report. 

2  Reply  of  Commissioners  Acton  and  Bergen  to  Governor  Seymour, 
in  the  Herald,  Jan.  3. 

3  Herald,  Jan.  20,  21 ;  Tribune,  Jan.  21 ;  Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  35. 

4  Herald,  Mar.  10,  12 ;  Tribune,  Mar.  10,  12. 

5  Herald,  Feb.  12 ;  Tribune,  Feb.  12. 

6  Herald,  Feb.  12,  13;  Tribune,  Feb.  13;  Argus,  Feb.  13. 


370       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [570 

his  determination  that  two  of  his  previous  appointees,  Bos- 
worth  and  McMurray,  should  get  the  positions.  The 
Unionists  acted  together,  and  the  bill  was  passed  with  the 
names  of  Bosworth,  McMurray,  Acton,  and  Bergen,  the 
last  two  being  commissioners  whom  the  Governor  had 
tried  to  remove.1  Seymour  accepted  this  measure,  Acton 
remained  president  of  the  Board,  Kennedy,  who  had  been 
so  severely  denounced  by  the  Democrats,  continued  as  su 
perintendent  of  the  police,2  and  thus  the  matter  came  to  a 
rather  lame  conclusion. 

1  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  478;  Senate  Journal,  1864,  p.  179;  Herald, 
Feb.  16;  Mar.  12.  Bowen,  the  third  of  the  former  commissioners,  had 
resigned  before  his  removal  to  enter  the  army. 

J  Herald,  Mar.  16. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
NEW  YORK  AND  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864 

THE  preliminaries  of  the  presidential  campaign  of  1864 
began  in  this  State  early.  The  Democratic  State  Conven 
tion  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  national  convention 
met  on  February  24th  at  Albany.1  Besides  two  rival  dele 
gations  from  Kings  County,  there  appeared  as  contestants 
from  New  York  County  Tammany,  Mozart,  and  the  Mc- 
Keon  organization,  the  last  named  with  the  prestige  of  hav 
ing  recently  smashed  the  combined  Tammany  and  Mozart 
machines  in  the  mayoralty  election.2  The  settlement  of  this 
triangular  fight  was  the  most  interesting  event  of  the  con 
vention.  The  committee  on  credentials,  after  a  long  hear 
ing,  reported  in  favor  of  admitting  all  three  delegations 
with  six  votes  each.  A  scene  of  disorder  followed.  Mozart 
and  McKeon  accepted  the  compromise,  though  the  former 
delegation  had  divided  on  the  question  of  acting  with 
Tammany  in  case  the  McKeonites  were  admitted — so  close 
was  the  alliance  between  some  of  the  leaders  of  the  two 
Halls.  Tammany,  however,  absolutely  refused  to  accept 
the  settlement  proposed  by  the  committee.  Senator  Fields, 
on  behalf  of  the  Tammany  delegation,  declared  that  the 
McKeon  organization  had  no  real  strength,  and  that  Tam- 

1  The  calling  of  the  convention  so  early  in  the  year  by  the  state 
committee  was,  it  seems,  a  victory  over  the  peace  faction  in  the  com 
mittee,  who  argued  in  favor  of  a  later  date  (Herald,  Jan.  28;  Tribune, 
Jan.  30). 

3  Herald,  Feb.  23,  25. 

571]  371 


NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [572 

many  could  not  consent  to  be  placed  on  a  footing  of  equality 
with  it.  Charging  that  McKeon  was  a  member  of  a  secret 
peace  society,  Fields  described  the  issue  as  that  of  the  sup 
porters  of  the  war  versus  those  opposed  to  it.  If  Tammany 
should  be  rejected,  he  said,  and  the  peace  Democracy  of  Mc 
Keon  admitted,  the  effect  could  not  be  mistaken.  This  speech 
was  interrupted  by  hisses,  groans,  yells,  cries  of  "  false," 
"You  lie !"  and  applause.  McKeon  in  reply  admitted  that  he 
favored  peace,  but  denied  that  his  organization  was  for  or 
against  it;  he  charged  Tammany  with  being  traffickers  for 
office,  railroad  jobbers,  and  allies  of  the  Republicans.  The 
audible  approval  reported  for  McKeon's  avowal  in  favor  of 
peace  apparently  indicated  that  a  portion  of  the  delegates 
strongly  sympathized  with  such  views.  Finally,  after  more 
washing  of  Democratic  dirty  linen  in  public,  the  recommen 
dation  of  the  committee  on  credentials  was  unanimously 
adopted,  whereupon  the  Tammany  delegation  left  the  hall.1 
In  an  attempt  to  avoid  thereafter  what  had  become  a 
chronic  nuisance  at  New  York  Democratic  state  conven 
tions,  a  resolution  was  then  adopted  that  delegates  from 
New  York  City  should  be  chosen  in  the  future  by  assembly 
districts  and  not  by  the  organizations  like  Tammany  or 
Mozart  as  a  whole.  Another  resolution,  that  those  chosen 
to  represent  New  York  at  the  national  convention  should 
vote  as  a  unit,  was  carried  despite  the  opposition  of  the  peace 
men.2  As  reported  from  committee,  the  roll  of  delegates 
to  the  national  convention  included  neither  of  the  Woods; 
and  attempts  to  amend  the  list  were  side-tracked  by  the 
previous  question.  Horatio  Seymour,  Dean  Richmond, 
Isaac  Butts,3  and  August  Belmont  were  chosen  dele- 

1  Herald,  Feb.  25 ;  Tribune,  Feb.  25 ;  Argus,  Feb.  25,  26. 
*  Herald,  Feb.  25;  Argus,  Feb.  26. 
8  Editor  of  the  Rochester  Union. 


573]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  373 

gates  at  large.  Among  the  district  delegates  were  Oswald 
Ottendorfer,  John  McKeon,  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  Amasa  J. 
Parker,  James  S.  Thayer,  John  A.  Green,  Sanford  E. 
Church,  and  Washington  Hunt.  The  convention  adopted 
no  resolutions  whatever  as  to  issues  or  as  to  preference  with 
regard  to  candidates.1 

After  the  convention  was  over,  the  Tammany  organ,  the 
New  York  Leader,  declared  that  the  war  Democracy  must 
be  rallied.2  The  Tammany  Hall  General  Committee 
adopted  resolutions  approving  the  action  of  the  Tammany 
delegates  in  withdrawing  from  the  convention.3  An  ad 
dress  and  declaration  of  principles  was  drawn  up  and  con 
sidered  by  the  General  Committee;  and  although  it  does 
not  appear  that  this  manifesto  was  adopted,  it  perhaps  de 
serves  attention  in  view  of  the  attitude  of  Mozart 4  and  of 
the  current  speculations  as  to  whether  Tammany  would 
call  a  rival  state  convention  upon  a  war  platform.5  This 
document,  while  condemning  the  administration  and  its 
various  measures  and  urging  that  the  Democrats  be  re 
stored  to  power,  at  the  same  time  said : 

We  believe  that  the  Union  and  the  Constitution  can  only  be 
maintained  by  the  exercise  of  superior  force  in  overcoming 
this  rebellion — that  there  can  be  no  peaceful  solution  of  this 
question  .  .  .  except  through  successful  war  or  a  shameful 

1  Herald,  Feb.  26;  Argus,  Feb.  26. 

2  Extract  printed  in  the  Tribune,  Feb.  29. 

3  Tribune,  Mar.  14;  Herald,  Mar.  14. 

4  On  January  2nd  the  Mozart  General  Committee  had  unanimously 
adopted  the   following :  "  Resolved,   That  the  national   democracy   of 
New  York  are  unqualifiedly  opposed  to  the  further  prosecution  of  the 
war  of  emancipation  and  extermination,  now  being  waged  against  the 
seceded  States ;  and  demand  and  will  continue  to  demand  negotiation, 
reconciliation  and  peace." — Advertisement  in  the  Herald,  Jan.  3. 

5  Herald,  Mar.  I. 


374       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [574 

surrender  to  the  demands  of  Southern  treason  ...  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  rebel  emissaries  in  our  midst  are  endeavoring 
to  create  a  division  of  sentiment  at  the  North  to  encourage  the 
South  and  to  prevent  that  concentration  and  energetic  unity 
of  action  among  the  Union  men  of  the  country  so  essential 
to  an  early  and  successful  issue  of  our  national  struggle. 

The  Regency  and  not  the  Democratic  party,  the  address 
continued,  was  represented  in  the  Albany  convention;  and 
a  protest  was  made  against  the  action  of  that  body.  Further, 
the  address  said :  "  We  believe  that  slavery,  as  a  subject  of 
political  agitation,  has  passed  from  the  politics  of  this  coun 
try;  and  that  there  should  be  but  one  party  of  patriotic 
men  .  .  .  devoted  wholly  to  the  restoration  of  the  Union 
and  the  supremacy  of  the  constitution,  surrendering  all 
subordinate  issues/'  Finally,  those  of  similar  sentiments 
throughout  the  State  were  invited  to  communicate  with 
the  signers  of  the  address,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  such 
steps  in  support  of  its  principles  as  should  be  deemed 
proper.  * 

This  paper  was  the  work  of  a  clever  though  crafty  and 
unscrupulous  politician,  Peter  B.  Sweeney ; 2  and  perhaps, 
its  significance  was  nothing  more  than  an  intended  blow  at 
Tammany's  rivals,  whom  it  was  desirable  to  defeat  and 
whose  peace  proclivities  furnished  a  good  point  of  attack. 
But  if  Tammany  had  not  been  controlled  by  placemen,  im 
portant  developments  might  have  resulted  from  her  with 
drawal  and  the  admission  of  the  peace  advocates  to  the 
convention. 

While  the  Democrats  were  thus  distracted,  a  movement 
national  in  scope  was  beginning  to  make  itself  felt  in  the 
Union  ranks  in  New  York  State.  The  old  radical  dissatis- 

1  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Mar.  13. 

2  Letter  of  Sweeney  to  the  Editor,  Herald,  Mar.  16. 


575]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  375 

faction  with  the  administration  was  passing  from  discon 
tented  words  to  action;  and  to  counteract  this,  the  friends 
of  the  President  began  to  bestir  themselves.  On  January 
23rd,  the  Union  Central  Committee  of  the  City  and  County 
of  New  York — a  body  composed  of  adherents  of  the  Seward 
wing — unanimously  passed  a  resolution  recommending  the 
renomination  of  Lincoln.1  On  January  27th,  a  conference 
was  held  at  Albany,  at  which  there  were  present  a  number 
of  Unionist  legislators,  state  officials,  and  others  including 
Gerrit  Smith  and  Lyman  Tremain.  Gerrit  Smith  offered 
resolutions  of  a  radical  character  condemning  some  of  the 
recent  measures  of  the  government.  After  discussion, 
however,  these  resolutions  were  tabled,  and  others  endorsing 
the  war  and  giving  a  general  approval  to  the  administra 
tion  were  adopted.2  Thus  the  radicals  were  apparently 
balked. 

About  the  same  time,  a  number  of  wealthy  and  prominent 
Unionists  of  New  York  City  sent  out  a  circular  to  the 
"  Loyal  Citizens  of  the  United  States,"  lauding  Lincoln  and 
proposing  that  all  in  favor  of  his  renomination  should  hold 
on  February  22nd  in  their  respective  localities  meetings  to 
that  end.3  However,  these  demonstrations  did  not  take 
place  in  New  York  City  or  elsewhere,  for  the  move  seems  to 
have  been  regarded  as  premature.4  At  the  beginning  of 
February,  "  Lincoln  Clubs "  began  to  be  formed  in  the 
various  wards  of  the  City.5  Two  associations  having 
the  same  object  were  also  organized  there,  one  of  them, 
the  "  Central  Union  Club "  being  especially  active.  Its 

1  Tribune,  Jan.  25. 

2  Herald,  Jan.  28,  29;  Tribune,  Jan.  30. 

3  Circular  printed  in  the  Herald,  Feb.  7. 

4  Washington  dispatch,  Herald,  Feb.  n. 

5  Tribune,  Feb.  3. 


376       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [576 

leading  spirit  was  Simeon  Draper,  a  politician  of  local 
note  and  later  collector  of  the  port.1  In  March  the 
Kings  County  Republican  General  Committee  endorsed 
Lincoln  and  his  administration.2  But  the  President's  ad 
herents  obtained  no  such  approval  from  the  Legislature. 
While  in  other  states — New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  New 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Minnesota,  Kansas,  Cali 
fornia,  Wisconsin,  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  Maine,  either  the 
lawmakers  or  the  Union  members  thereof  or  else  a  Union 
state  convention  had  come  out  in  favor  of  another  term 
for  the  President,3  New  York  took  no  action  on  this  matter. 
In  March,  Assemblyman  Brandreth,  a  young  War  Demo 
crat,  offered  a  resolution  endorsing  Lincoln ;  but  it  was  laid 
on  the  table  4  and  no  more  was  heard  of  it.5 

Meanwhile  the  friends  of  Chase  and  Fremont  were  not 
idle.  The  radicals,  including  the  Tribune,  generally  urged 
that  it  was  too  early  to  select  presidential  candidates  and 
that  all  Unionists  ought  for  the  time  to  devote  themselves 
to  the  single  aim  of  crushing  the  rebellion.  In  an  editorial 
of  February  23rd  the  Tribune  virtually  declared  against 
Lincoln's  renomination.  It  avowed  the  intention,  however, 
of  heartily  supporting  the  Union  candidates  whoever  they 
might  be,  and  admitted  that  Lincoln  had  "  well  discharged 
the  responsibilities  of  his  exalted  station  "  and  that  he  was 
the  first  choice  of  a  large  majority  of  those  who  upheld  the 
war.  Yet,  the  editorial  continued,  the  Tribune  was  opposed 
to  two  terms  except  "  under  the  pressure  of  extraordinary 
circumstances  .  .  .  The  practical  question,  then  is  this— 

1  Tribune,  Mar.  31,  April  8;  Herald,  May  14. 

2  Tribune,  Mar.  2. 

3  Tribune,  Feb.  23;  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  pp.  55~56. 

4  Assembly  Journal,  1864,  p.  416. 

5  Herald,  April  27. 


577]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  377 

Has  Mr.  Lincoln  proved  so  transcendentally  an  able  and 
admirable  a  President  that  all  consideration  of  the  merits, 
abilities  or  services  of  others  should  be  postponed  or  fore- 
borne  in  favor  of  his  reelection?  We  answer  in  the  nega 
tive."  In  March,  a  meeting  in  favor  of  the  "  Pathfinder  " 
was  addressed  by  Greeley.1 

The  Independent  about  the  same  time  published  an  article 
which,  while  mentioning  no  names,  plainly  indicated  a  pre 
ference  for  some  other  than  Lincoln.2  The  Post,  like  the 
other  radicals,  declared  that  the  calling  of  the  Union  Na 
tional  Convention  to  meet  on  June  7th  was  a  mistake. 
"  Should  our  affairs  continue  to  prosper,"  it  said,  "  then 
Lincoln  will  continue  in  the  favor  he  now  enjoys.  .  .  .  But 
if  ...  we  shall  encounter  only  reverses  and  calamities, 
would  Mr.  Lincoln  then  be  the  proper  standard  bearer  of 
the  loyal  party?"  3  Under  date  of  March  25th,  a  petition 
to  the  National  Executive  Committee  of  the  "  Union  and 
Republican  Parties  "  asking  that  the  national  convention 
be  deferred  and  that  it  be  assembled  not  earlier  than  Sep 
tember  ist,  was  sent  out  from  New  York  with  a  formidable 
list  of  signers;  these  included  two-thirds  of  the  Unionist 
members  of  the  state  Senate,  also  William  Cullen  Bryant, 
William  Curtis  Noyes,  and  George  Opdyke.4 

In  April,  the  fact  of  Chase's  withdrawal  from  the  presi 
dential  canvass  became  known.  The  question  then  turned 
to  whether  the  radical  strength  could  be  concentrated  on 

1  Herald,  Mar.  19;  the  Tribune  of  Mar.  18  printed  at  the  top  of  its 
editorial  columns  an  invitation  to  a  meeting  of  friends  of  Fremont  to 
consider  the  propriety  of  presenting  his  name  as  a  presidential  candidate. 

2  Extract  from  the  Independent,  quoted  by  the  Tribune,  Feb.  18. 

3  New  York  Evening  Post,  Mar.  21.    The  Tribune,  up  to  the  very 
meeting  of  the  Baltimore  convention,  took  a  similar  attitude. 

4  Printed  in  the  Herald,  April  27. 


378       NEIV  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [578 

Fremont.  The  two  centers  of  the  movement  in  his  behalf 
were  St.  Louis  and  New  York.1  It  was  the  Central  Fremont 
Club  of  New  York  City  that  joined  with  the  St.  Louis 
radicals  at  the  beginning  of  May  in  issuing  the  call  for  the 
Cleveland  convention.2  In  the  middle  of  May,  there  was 
issued  another  call  for  the  same  object,  and  among  the  New 
York  men  who  signed  this  document 3  were  state  Comp 
troller  Robinson,  Attorney-General  Cochrane,  ex-state  Sena 
tor  Andrew  J.  Colvin,  and  Thomas  B.  Carroll,  long  a  promi 
nent  and  ardent  anti-Weed  man.  When  the  convention 
assembled,  Cochrane  was  chosen  permanent  chairman  and 
made  an  eloquent  address.4  New  York  representatives 
favored  Grant's  nomination,5  and  there  was  read  in  the 
convention  a  letter  from  Comptroller  Robinson  advo 
cating  this  step ; 6  but  the  other  delegations  were  for  Fre 
mont,  and  so  the  nomination  went  to  him  with  Cochrane 
for  his  running  mate. 

On  June  4th,  the  Saturday  before  the  Baltimore  con 
vention,  a  great  mass-meeting  in  honor  of  General  Grant 
was  held  in  New  York  City.  While  the  committee  which 
managed  the  affair  made  no  declaration  of  any  ulterior 
motive  and  even  invited  Lincoln  to  attend,  there  was  prob 
ably  back  of  the  demonstration  a  purpose  of  influencing  the 
coming  convention  in  behalf  of  Grant's  nomination  for  the 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  30. 

2  Tribune,  May  6.    None  of  the  signers  who  came  from  New  York 
were  prominent  in  politics. 

3  Printed  in  the  Herald,  May  18. 

4  Herald,  June  i. 

5  Tribune,  May  31 ;  Herald,  May  31 ;  confirmed  by  the  action  of  the 
New  York  delegates  on  the  floor  of  the  convention  as  reported  in  the 
convention  proceedings,  Herald,  June  i. 

'  Herald,  June  i. 


579]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  379 

presidency.1  Lincoln  men,  however,  joined  in  and  con 
trolled  the  gathering,2  and  so  the  speeches  and  resolutions 
were  of  no  political  significance.3 

By  the  time  that  the  Union  State  Convention  met  at 
Syracuse — May  24th — Lincoln's  strength  with  the  mass  of 
the  party  was  so  apparent  that  the  convention  adopted  by 
acclamation  and  with  hearty  cheering  a  resolution  approving 
his  administration,  "  recognizing  his  integrity  and  patriotic 
efforts  to  suppress  the  rebellion,"  and  expressing  "  its  pre 
ference  for  his  renomination."  *  Thurlow  Weed,  Horace 
Greeley,  Henry  J.  Raymond,  and  Roscoe  Conkling  were  the 
big  lights  in  attendance.5  The  rivalry  between  the  two 
wings  of  the  party  broke  forth  because  of  the  presence  of 
two  delegations — both,  however,  represented  as  earnestly 
favoring  a  second  term  for  Lincoln  6 — respectively  chosen 
by  the  Seward  and  radical  organizations  of  New  York  City. 
As  the  temporary  chairman  had  the  appointment  of  the  com 
mittee  on  contested  seats,  the  struggle  began  over  the  selec 
tion  of  that  officer.  Raymond  nominated  Chauncey  M.  De- 
pew;  Richard  Busteed,  a  radical,  named  Lyman  Tremain. 
The  latter  won  by  six  votes.  The  majority  of  the  committee 

1  Herald,  June  2;  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  50; 
Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States,  iv,  p.  469. 

2  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  50. 

3  Herald,  June  5.    Except  for  a  casual  reference  by  General  Wai- 
bridge,  Grant's  name  was  not  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  presi 
dency  by  any  of  the  speakers. 

4  Herald,  May  26.     Describing  conditions  just  before  the  convention 
assembled,  a  dispatch  said :  "  The  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  renomin 
ation  of  Lincoln  seems  to  be  almost  unanimous"   (Herald,  May  25). 
See  also  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  United  Union  Associations  of 
the   City  of   New  York — evidently  the  radical  organization. — Tribune, 
May  23. 

6  Herald,  May  25. 
6  Ibid. 


380       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [580 

on  contested  seats  reported  in  favor  of  seating  both  delega 
tions  from  New  York  City,  and  this  recommendation  was 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  192  to  98 — apparently  a  defeat  for  the 
Seward  faction.  After  the  choice  of  the  district  delegates 
to  the  national  convention  and  the  passage  of  the  Lincoln 
resolution,  the  convention  balloted  for  the  delegates  at  large, 
with  the  result  that  the  four  elected  were  Henry  J.  Raymond 
with  231  votes;  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  208;  Lyman  Tremain, 
175;  and  Preston  King,  135.  Raymond  and  King  be 
longed  to  the  Seward  wing;  Dickinson  and  Tremain  to  the 
opposing  faction.  The  convention  closed  with  a  speech  by 
Raymond  in  favor  of  Lincoln's  renomination.1 

On  the  following  day,  a  new  organization  within  the 
Union  party,  a  state  committee  of  War  Democrats,  was 
formed.2  The  sentiment  of  those  present  on  this  occasion, 
including  leading  War  Democrats  from  other  states,  was 
unanimously  in  favor  of  another  term  for  Lincoln.3  A 
meeting  in  the  metropolis  soon  after  resulted  in  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  committee  of  the  War  Democrats  of  the  City 
and  County  of  New  York,  and  in  the  adoption  of  resolu 
tions  calling  for  the  renomination  of  Lincoln  and  urging  the 
name  of  Daniel  S.  Dickinson  for  the  vice-presidential  nomi 
nation.4  A  few  days  before  the  Union  National  Conven 
tion  assembled,  the  state  committee  of  War  Democrats 
adopted  a  resolution  requesting  the  War  Democracy  of 
New  York  and  of  other  states  to  rally  at  Baltimore  for  the 
purpose  of  furthering  Dickinson's  prospects.5 

1  Herald,  May  26,  29. 

2  Herald,   May  26;    Tribune,   May  28.      The  Argus    (May  30)    de 
nounced  the   committee   as   "  a    fraud   and   a  humbug."     The   Albany 
Evening  Journal  (May  28)  did  practically  the  same;  but  there  was  a 
motive  behind  the  denunciations  of  both  of  these  papers. 

3  Tribune,  May  28.  -  *  Tribune,  June  i.       5  Tribune,  June  4. 


581]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  381 

The  factional  struggle  in  New  York  was  now  transferred 
to  the  Union  National  Convention,  which  met  at  Baltimore 
on  June  7th.  Thurlow  Weed  was  on  the  ground,1  attending 
to  the  task  of  defeating  Dickinson,  for  whom  a  number  of 
New  York  War  Democrats  were  laboring,2  and  who  was 
found  to  have  great  strength  not  only  in  the  New  York 
delegation  but  also  in  those  of  other  states.3  Indeed,  the 
principal  struggle  within  the  convention  was  over  the  vice- 
presidential  nomination.  The  renomination  of  Lincoln  be 
ing  quite  certain  on  the  eve  of  the  convention,  the  vice- 
presidency  would  naturally  go  to  the  East;  and  the  second 
place  would  probably  have  been  conceded  to  the  Empire 
State  had  the  New  York  delegates  reached  an  agreement.4 
But  they  could  not  harmonize  their  differences.  As  a  War 
Democrat  and  as  a  citizen  of  New  York,  Dickinson  had 

1  Tribune,  June  8;  Herald,  June  7. 

2  Tribune,  June  7.    Weed  called  the  Dickinson  workers  at  Baltimore 
"  a    formidable    and    organized    body    of    ultra    abolitionists,    '  loyal 
leaguers '  and  radical  demagogues  "  (T.  W.  in  Albany  Evening  Journal, 
June  II ). 

3  Herald,  June  6,  7,  8. 

4  Opposed  to  this,  we  have  Alexander  K.  McClure's  statement  that 
Lincoln  desired  Johnson  to  be  nominated  for  the  vice-presidency  and 
expressed  such  a  wish   (Recollections  of  Half  a  Century,  p.  87;  also 
Lincoln  and  Men  of  War  Times,  appendix)  ;  per  contra,  we  have  Lin 
coln's  reply  to  Nicolay   (Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p. 
73)   and  Nicolay's  statement.     Rhodes   (History  of  the  United  States, 
iv,  pp.  469,  470)  says  that  Johnson  was  selected  because  he  was  a  War 
Democrat  and  a  border  state  man,  but  takes  no  stand  as  to  the  con 
troversy  over  Lincoln's  part.     Neither  does  Rhodes  make  mention  of 
the  influence  of  New  York  politics  or  of  Seward's  position  on  the 
question.     Bates'    statement    in    "  Lincoln    in    the    Telegraph    Office " 
(Century  Magazine,  vol.  74,  p.  618)  is  also  opposed  to  McClure's  con 
tention.     That  Johnson  fulfilled  both  of  the  conditions  mentioned  by 
Rhodes,  while  Dickinson  satisfied  but  one,  does  not  preclude  the  strong 
probability  that   New   York   politics   had   a   decided   influence  in   the 
final  choice. 


382       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [582 

desirable  qualifications.  But  it  was  claimed  that  should  the 
vice-president  be  a  New  Yorker,  Seward  would  have  to  re 
sign  the  secretaryship  of  state.1  Hence,  the  adherents  of 
Weed  bent  their  energies  toward  keeping  New  York  off 
the  ticket.  Moreover,  the  name  of  Daniel  S.  Dickinson  was 
not  a  palatable  one  to  the  Weed  men. 

The  day  before  the  convention  assembled,  the  New  York 
delegation  caucused.  After  unanimously  voting  for  the 
renomination  of  Lincoln  and  engaging  in  a  long  debate 
over  the  second  place,  a  ballot  was  taken  for  the  latter,  re 
sulting  in  28  votes  for  Hamlin,  16  for  Dickinson,  8  for 
Johnson,  6  for  Tremain  and  a  few  scattering.  The  caucus 
then  adjourned  to  the  morrow.2  On  the  7th,  a  bitter 
struggle  of  three  hours'  duration  occurred,  in  which 
Tremain  and  C.  B.  Cochrane  spoke  for  Dickinson,  while 
Preston  King,  George  William  Curtis,  and  Henry  J.  Ray- 

1  This  argument  seems  a  strange  one  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
vice-president  and  the  secretary  of  state  came  from  the  same  state 
during  a  part,  at  least,  of  the  administrations  of  Washington,  John 
Adams  and  Polk,  not  to  mention  cases  later  than  Lincoln's  time.    Yet, 
the  current  accounts   (e.  g.  Herald,  June  7;  Tribune,  June  9)  are  in 
directly  confirmed  by  Weed's  statement  that  "  a  formidable  and  organ 
ized  body  of  ultra  abolitionists,   '  loyal   leaguers '   and   radical   dema 
gogues  appeared  at  Baltimore,   for  the  purpose,  as  they  avowed,  of 
procuring  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Dickinson  for  Vice-President,  that 
Mr.   Seward  might  be  excluded   from  the   Cabinet"    (T.   W.   in  the 
Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  n).     According  to  the  Herald  dispatch, 
George  William   Curtis,  in  the  caucus  of  the  New  York  delegation, 
said  "  that  the  real  question  at  issue  had  not  been  given  yet,  and  it 
might  as  well  be  stated  and  met  right  here.     If  the  Vice-President  was 
taken   from  New  York,   it  would  prevent  that   State  from  having  a 
member  of  the   Cabinet."     The  same  dispatch  says :  "  Mr.   Raymond, 
alluding  to  the  fact  that  this  was  a  move  to  break  up  the  Cabinet, 
was  taken  [to  task]  by  Mr.  Tremain,  who,  in  retort,  declared  that  a 
change  in   the   Cabinet  would  not  be  a  very  serious   calamity  .  .  .  " 
(Herald,  June  8). 

2  Herald,  June  7. 


583]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  383 

mond  opposed  him.     The  ballot  again  resulted  in  no  choice, 
Johnson  receiving  32  votes,  Dickinson  28,  and  Hamlin  6.1 

New  York  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  convention.  One 
of  its  delegates,  Senator  Morgan,  called  the  assemblage  to 
order;  the  report  of  the  committee  on  credentials  was  de 
livered  by  another  New  Yorker,  ex-Senator  Preston  King; 
a  third,  Henry  J.  Raymond,  wrote  the  platform  and  was 
subsequently  chosen  chairman  of  the  Union  National  Com 
mittee;  while  a  fourth,  George  William  Curtis,  wrote  the 
letter  of  notification  to  Lincoln.  The  committee  on  cre 
dentials  recommended  the  exclusion  of  the  delegates  of  any 
of  the  seceded  states;  but  King,  a  Seward  man,2  moved 
to  amend  the  report,  which  he  himself  had  just  rendered, 
by  admitting  the  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  and  Arkansas 
delegates.3  This  strange  proceeding  was  ascribed  in  the 
press  to  an  arrangement  between  the  Southern  delegates 
and  three  or  four  Seward  leaders,  the  latter  agreeing  to 
admit  the  Southerners  in  return  for  votes  against  Dickin 
son;  and  it  was  also  asserted  that  a  bargain  for  the  same 
end  was  made  between  the  Seward  men  and  the  Ohio 
delegation.4  The  occurrences  within  the  convention  lent 
probability  to  these  allegations.  At  any  rate,  the  admis 
sion  of  Tennessee's  representatives,  thereby  rendering 
Andrew  Johnson  available,  was  an  important  step  toward 
heading  off  Dickinson.  The  case  of  Tennessee  being  taken 
up  first,  the  vote  against  this  proposition  was  steadily 
increasing  until  New  York  gave  forty-four  votes  in  its 
favor;  then  Ohio  gave  forty-two,  and  subsequently  suffi- 

1  Tribune,  June  8;  Herald,  June  8. 

2  King  usually  if  not  always  sided  with  the  Weed-Seward   faction 
during  the  period  here  treated,  although  his  principles  were  apparently 
radical. 

3  Tribune,  June  10;  Herald,  June  9,  12. 
*  Herald,  June  9,  12. 


384       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [584 

cient  changes  were  made  to  let  Tennessee  in.  The  ad 
mission  of  Louisiana  and  Arkansas  naturally  followed.1 
When  the  time  to  nominate  candidates  for  the  vice-presi 
dency  came,  Lyman  Tremain  presented  Dickinson's  name, 
making  an  eloquent  appeal  which  was  received  with  en 
thusiasm.2  Had  it  not  become  apparent  as  the  ballot  pro 
ceeded  that  Johnson  would  probably  be  successful,  the 
latter  would  have  had  but  200  votes  to  113  for  Dickinson, 
145  for  Hamlin,  28  for  Butler  and  34  scattering.  As  a  re 
sult  of  changed  votes,  the  ballot  as  announced  gave  John 
son  492,  Dickinson  17,  and  Hamlin  5.3  Thus  the  friends 
of  Seward  won  and  the  United  States  came  to  have  Andrew 
Johnson  for  its  chief  executive. 

The  national  convention  was  followed  by  a  controversy 
more  bitter  than  ever  before  between  Thurlow  Weed  and 
his  opponents.  The  immediate  occasion  was  an  editorial 
in  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  wherein  two  of  the  resolu 
tions  adopted  at  Baltimore  were  spoken  of  as  "  a  blow  right 
between  the  eyes  of  the  Secretary  of  State."  Further,  the 
editorial  said :  "  By  their  cavalier  treatment  of  the  school 
of  Weed,  Cameron  and  the  like,  they  [the  convention]  told 
him  [Lincoln]  pretty  plainly  to  keep  away  from  such  fel 
lows  in  the  future;  and  we  hope  he  will  heed  the  warning." 
Weed  replied  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal.  After  re 
buking  the  Post  for  its  criticisms  of  the  President — and  the 
Post,  it  must  be  admitted,  had  passed  judgment  on  Lincoln 
in  rather  outrageous  terms,  considering  that  it  avowed 
itself  a  supporter  of  the  administration — Weed  went  on  to 
defend  Seward.  "  Why  this  persistent  persecution,  blood 
hound  tracking  of  an  able,  patriotic,  unselfish,  upright 

1  Tribune,  June  9. 

2  Herald,  June  9.  8  Ibid. 
4  New  York  Evening  Post,  June  9. 


585]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  385 

statesman?"  he  asked.  And  he  concluded  with  the  asser 
tion  that  "  the  wicked,  homicidal  slavery  leaders  would  have 
failed  to  consummate  their  treason  but  for  the  aid 
received  from  their  '  best  friends,'  the  abolitionists  of  the 
North, 

Of  course,  the  Post  retorted,  assailing  Weed  as  father 
of  the  lobby  at  Albany  and  as  a  gridiron-railroad  bill  man 
ager,  and  insinuating  that  he  had  acted  corruptly  at  the  be 
ginning  of  the  war  in  the  chartering  of  the  steamer  "  Cati 
line  "  for  the  use  of  the  government,2  a  transaction  which 
had  created  a  scandal.  In  reply,  Weed  not  only  defended 
the  "  Catiline  "  business,  but  declared  that  he  was  entirely 
disconnected  with  the  affair.  However,  it  appeared  from 
his  own  statement  that  he  had  endorsed  notes  for  John  E. 
Develin,  with  which  the  latter  had  advanced  money  to  the 
person  who  purchased  the  "  Catiline "  after  it  had  been 
verbally  chartered  by  the  government  agent;  but,  accord 
ing  to  Develin,  Weed  did  not  know  the  object  for  which  the 
notes  were  drawn. 

Weed  was  apparently  wrought  up  by  these  charges.  He 
struck  back  at  each  of  his  enemies.  He  accused  an  editor 
of  the  Post  of  being  a  prominent  member  of  the  Albany 
lobby,  and  affirmed  that  one  of  the  Post's  proprietors,  Hen 
derson,  was  guilty  of  corruption  in  the  office  of  naval  agent. 
This  last  allegation  had  some  basis  of  truth,  it  seems;  for 
not  long  after,  Henderson  was  dismissed  from  office  and 
arrested.3  Then  Weed  turned  upon  ex-Mayor  Opdyke. 
"  This  man,"  said  Weed,  "  has  made  more  money  by  secret 
partnerships  in  army  cloth,  blankets,  clothing,  and  gun  con 
tracts  than  any  fifty  sharpers  ...  in  the  city  of  New 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  n. 

2  New  York  Evening  Post,  June  13. 

3  Herald,  June  24. 


386       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [586 

York."  He  declared  that  Opdyke  had  denied  all  inter 
est  in  a  claim  arising  out  of  the  destruction  of  a  gun  factory 
during  the  draft  riot,  that  he  might  sit  officially  on  the 
board  which  passed  upon  such  matters,  and  subsequently, 
after  an  allowance  of  $190,000  had  been  made  and  paid  by 
the  City,  a  suit  arose  in  the  course  of  which  Opdyke  affirmed 
that  he  was  the  part  owner  of  the  property.  Then  Weed  dis 
cussed  at  length  the  financial  dealings  of  Opdyke  and  David 
Dudley  Field  with  General  Fremont  in  the  formation  of 
the  Mariposa  mining  company.  And  he  concluded  with 
an  attack  upon  his  most  persistent  and  powerful  adver 
sary,  the  Tribune,  by  asserting  that  while  that  paper  was 
falsely  accusing  him,  the  Tribune  associates  and  corres 
pondents  were  themselves  making  money  out  of  government 
contracts,  supplying  the  enemy  through  the  New  York 
custom-house  (an  incidental  thrust  at  such  anti-Weed  men 
as  Hiram  Barney  and  Rufus  Andrews),  and  engaging  in 
cotton  speculations.  "  It  is  alleged,"  Weed  concluded, 
"  that  Mr.  Greeley  obtained  Callicot's  appointment,  and 
shares  profits  with  him.  Of  this  I  know  nothing  more  than 
that  a  gentleman  .  .  .  informed  me  that  drafts  had  come 
from  Callicot  to  Mr.  Greeley.  But  Camp  .  .  .  avows  his 
connection  with  Mr.  Greeley  in  cotton  speculations."  The 
consequences  of  this  scandalous  quarrel  on  the  eve  of  a 
most  important  political  campaign  evidently  had  no  re 
straining  effect  upon  Weed. 

There  was  a  whole  crop  of  replies.  Field  wrote  to  the 
Post  that  the  receipt  of  stock  from  Fremont  was  a  counsel 
fee  for  real  and  necessary  legal  services  and  not,  as  Weed 
asserted,  a  part  of  a  gratuity  for  promoting  Fremont's 
political  interests;  and  he  declared  that  Weed's  attempt  to 
adjust  the  value  of  his  (Field's)  work  was  sheer  im- 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  18. 


587]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  387 

pertinence.1  Opdyke,  in  an  open  letter,2  contented  himself 
for  the  time  with  a  denial  of  Weed's  charges,  but  promised 
to  seek  redress  from  the  courts  later.  In  the  following 
December  Opdyke  carried  out  this  threat  in  a  libel  suit 
which  attracted  widespread  attention.3  The  Post  said, 
along  with  much  else :  "  It  is  an  old  trick  with  rogues 
to  shout  stop  thief,  and  we  suspect  that  T.  W.  is  making 
a  great  outcry  against  the  dozen  or  more  respectable  private 
individuals  whom  he  so  wantonly  assails  to  divert  attention 
from  his  own  sinister  course."  * 

Greeley  published  the  following  curious  editorial  card : 

I,  Horace  Greeley,  do  solemnly  declare  .  .  .  that  I  have 
been  a  partner  in  no  contract,  job,  or  undertaking  of  any  sort, 
with,  to,  or  for  the  Government  of  this  State,  or  of  the  United 
States,  since  Abraham  Lincoln  became  President;  and  that, 
except  by  the  publication  of  advertisements  in  the  Tribune  at 
the  usual  and  regular  prices  charged  to  advertisers  generally, 
I  have  made  no  dollar  of  money  out  of  either  or  any  Govern 
ment,  whether  by  job,  contract,  commission  or  otherwise. 

(signed)         HORACE  GREELEY." 

Greeley  also  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Albany  Evening  Journal, 
in  which  he  said : 

Mr.  Editor,  good  and  true  men  whom  I  love  and  honor  have 
appealed  to  me  not  to  distract  the  Union  party  by  persisting 
in  personal  feuds  with  Mr.  Weed.  Years  ago,  T.  W.  and  I 

1  Printed  in  the  Herald,  June  23. 

2  Printed  in  the  Herald,  June  22. 

3  Herald,  Sept.  6,  Dec.  14  and  the  following  days ;  Weed,  Autobio 
graphy,  pp.  528-9. 

4  New  York  Evening  Post,  June  20. 

5  Tribune,  June  25. 


388       NEIV  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [588 

were  daily  associates  and  (as  I  thought)  friends.  We  have 
since  separated,  simply  and  only  because  one  of  us  has  come 
to  believe  and  practise  systematically  using  legislators  and 
legislation  to  advance  personal  interests  and  promote  private 
ends.  Whatever  may  be  asserted,  there  is  not,  there  never 
was,  another  serious  ground  of  difference  between  us.  The 
City  Railroad  bills  of  1860,  the  whiskey  legislation  of  the 
present  session,  illustrate  the  whole  matter.1 

This  letter  seems  to  have  maddened  Weed  still  more,  and 
another  epistle  came  from  him,  reiterating  his  former 
charges,  attributing  his  separation  from  Greeley  to  the  lat- 
ter's  ambition,  reproaching  Greeley  for  his  connection  with 
Fourierism  and  the  Maine  laws.2  reminding  him  of  his  will 
ingness  to  let  the  cotton  states  withdraw  from  the  Union, 
and  scoring  his  war  policy.3 

There  followed  open  letters  from  Opdyke,4  Benjamin  F. 
Camp,5  and  David  Dudley  Field,6  showing  the  extent  to 
which  the  animosity  had  grown.  Opdyke  spoke  of  Weed  as 
"  a  person  whom  I  long  since  proved  to  be  as  reckless  of 
truth  as  he  is  bankrupt  of  character,  and  whose  moral  sensi 
bilities  have  become  so  blunted  in  the  practise  of  his  vocation 
as  lobby  chief  that  he  seems  to  be  no  longer  capable  of  dis 
tinguishing  between  right  and  wrong."  Field  declared 
that  Weed's  "  presence  in  our  party  has  done  more  than 
that  of  any  other  man  to  demoralize  it."  The  controversy 
died  down  for  a  while,  but  a  month  later  found  Greeley  and 

1  Tribune,  June  24. 

2  For    Greeley's    connection    with    Fourierism,    see    Linn's    Horace 
Greeley,  pp.  79-84;  for  his  advocacy  of  the  Maine  laws,  see  ibid.,  p.  172. 

8  Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  25. 

4  Herald,  July  2. 

5  Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  28. 

6  Herald,  June  30. 


589]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  389 

Raymond  engaged  in  an  editorial  war,  couched  however  in 
more  polite  terms,  on  the  subject  of  Greeley's  efforts  at 
Niagara  to  bring  about  peace  between  the  North  and  the 
South.1  Of  course,  those  outside  the  Union  ranks  were 
pleased  at  these  dissensions.  The  Herald  printed  one  of 
the  letters  quoted  above  under  the  title :  "  Weed  the  Wash 
erwoman  of  the  Republican  Party,"  2  and  declared  that  the 
"  irrepressible  conflict  "  between  the  two  wings  of  the  party 
had  begun  in  earnest.3  Then  too,  there  were  at  this  time 
differences  within  the  loyal  leagues.4  And  all  this  strife 
came  on  top  of  the  dissatisfaction  that  culminated  in  the 
Wade-Davis  manifesto. 

Weed,  however,  soon  obtained  a  great  triumph  over  his 
adversaries.     Lincoln  and  Weed  "  naturally  '  took  to  each 

1  Tribune,  Aug.  5;  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  195. 
In  December,  Rufus  F.  Andrews  wrote  to  Weed :  "  Why  don't  you  enu- 
late  the  last  virtue  of  Judas  Iscariot  and  hang  yourself?"  and  further 
on  Andrews  called  Weed  "an  unscrupulous  old  liar"  (Letter  printed 
in  the  Herald,  Dec.  12). 

2  Herald,  June  27. 

3  Herald,  June  14.     The  Albany  Evening  Journal  (June  25)   in  an 
swer  to  Greeley's  complaints  about  the  publication  of  Weed's  letters, 
did  not  deny  that  they  furnished  ammunition  to  the  enemy,  but  knew 
of  no  way  to  prevent  it  since  Weed's  opponents  had  begun  the  con 
troversy. 

4  Herald,  July  7,   for  resolutions  considered  in  the   Kings   County 
General    Committee,    attacking   the   Union    League    for    favoring   the 
nomination  of  some  other  than  Lincoln;  Herald,  July  16,  for  an  ac 
count  of  an  effort  at  the  meeting  of  the  state  council  of  the  Loyal 
Union  League  to   suppress  local   councils   favorable  to  the   Seward- 
Lincoln  interest.    At  this  meeting,   a  resolution  was  adopted  by  the 
state  council  disapproving  and  repudiating  the  action  of  council  no. 
4  of  Brooklyn  in  passing  resolutions  "  nominating  a  candidate  for  the 
Presidency"    (i.    e.    Lincoln),    and   "circulating  the    same   among   the 
councils   of  the   State."     The  Herald   correspondent   at  the   Saratoga 
meeting  of  the  state  council,  held  on  Aug.  3,  reported  similar  discord 
between  the  Lincoln  and  Fremont  men  there  (Herald,  Aug.  7). 


390       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [590 

other  '  from  the  very  day  they  met,"  said  Swett,  "  and  their 
relations  grew  gradually  more  agreeable  and  friendly,"  the 
President  frequently  sending  for  Weed  to  consult  him  on 
important  questions.1  It  was  the  practicality,  the  good 
sense,  and  the  tact  of  the  veteran  New  York  politician 
which  probably  attracted  Lincoln.  Seward,  too,  Lincoln 
found  congenial 2 — Chase  becoming  ever  less  so.  More 
over,  the  Weed  faction  in  New  York  claimed  to  be  the 
special  friends  of  the  President ; 3  and  when  Chase  began 
to  intrigue  for  the  presidency,  Weed  apparently  was  able  to 
convince  Lincoln  of  the  truth  of  that  assertion.  And  yet, 
at  the  beginning  of  1864,  Weed  contemplated  opposing  a 
second  term  for  Lincoln.  The  old  man  evidently  was  get 
ting  ready  to  commit  the  same  sort  of  treachery  against  the 
President  that  he  once  attempted  against  Fillmore.4  In  the 

1  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  295,  quoting  Swett ;  ibid.,  p.  288,  quot 
ing  George  E.  Baker. 

2  Bancroft's  Seward,  ii,  p.  358;  F.  W.  Seward's  Seward  at  Washing 
ton,  iii,  p.  197. 

3  Schucker's  Chase,  p.  477 ;  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  of  May  24th 
said :  "  Four-fifths  of  the  offices  of  Customs  and  an  equal  proportion 
of  the  Internal  Revenue  Officers  in  the  city  of  New  York,  are  hostile 
to  the  President.     Men  holding  sinecure  offices  in  the  Custom  House 
are  now   secretly  at  work,   throughout  the   State,    for  the   Cleveland 
Convention."    Weed  wrote  to  David  Davis :  "  They  will  all  be  against 
him   [Lincoln]   in  '64;  why  does  he  persist  in  giving  them  weapons 
with  which  they  may  be  able  not  only  to  defeat  his  renomination,  but 
to  destroy  the  government?"  (Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  440).     As 
Davis  was  one  of  Lincoln's  most  trusted  counselors,  this  letter  or  its 
contents  was  probably  brought  to  Lincoln's  attention. 

4  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  198.    In  a  letter  to  Abram  Wakeman, 
dated  Oct.   I3th,  Weed  said :  "  My  reasons  for  desiring  a  change  of 
Administration  are  known  to  those  who  have  read  what  I  felt  con 
strained  to  say  since  December,  1860,  ...  It  was  this  dread  of  ultra 
Abolition  embarrassing  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  past,  and  threatening  em 
barrassment  in  the  future,  that  induced  me  to  hope  for  a  change  of 
Administration.     I   believed  that  a   Democratic   President,   as   earnest 
as    Mr.   Lincoln    against   the    Rebellion,    and    exempted    from    the   in- 


59 1 ]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864 

spring  of  1864,  Weed  wrote  a  letter  to  David  Davis,  who 
showed  it  to  Lincoln,  wherein  was  expressed  the  writer's 
dissatisfaction  with  Lincoln's  course.  Weed  was  evidently 
urgent  for  prompt  action  upon  some  matter — probably  the 
patronage  thus  far  possessed  by  his  opponents.1  Later,  he 
wrote  to  Seward :  "  Knowing  that  I  was  not  satisfied  with 
the  President,  they  came  to  me  for  cooperation ;  but  my  ob 
jection  to  Mr.  Lincoln  is  that  he  has  done  too  much  for 
those  who  now  seek  to  drive  him  out  of  the  field."  2 

During  that  same  year,  some  of  the  men  closest  to  Weed, 
including  Raymond  and  Abram  Wakeman,  made  a  raid  on 
Gideon  Welles  in  an  effort  to  get  the  latter  to  reorganize  the 
Brooklyn  Navy  Yard  for  party  purposes.3  This  pressure 
on  the  part  of  Weed  and  his  followers  and  the  danger  of  de 
fection  in  that  quarter  were  clearly  appreciated  by  Lincoln; 
for  the  latter  wrote  to  Chase  that  the  appointment  of  Judge 
Hogeboom  (long  a  prominent  anti-Weed  man  4)  to  be  gen 
eral  appraiser  "  brought  me  to,  and  has  ever  since  kept  me 
at,  the  verge  of  open  revolt.  Now  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Field  would  precipitate  me  in  it,  unless  Senator  Morgan, 
and  those  feeling  as  he  does,  could  be  brought  to  concur  in 
it."  5 

fluences  which  have  beset  and  badgered  him  from  the  beginning,  could 
prosecute  the  War  more  successfully;  ..."  (Printed  in  the  Albany 
Evening  Journal,  Oct.  14). 

1  Letter  of   Davis  to  Weed,   printed  in   Barnes'  Memoir  of   Weed, 
pp.  444-5. 

2  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  366,  quoting  MS.  letter  of 
Weed  to  Seward. 

3  "  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,"  Atlantic  Monthly,  Sept.  1909,  pp.  356, 
359,  36i,  362. 

*  He  was  one  of  those  who  took  part  in  the  conferences  of  anti- 
Weed  men  in  1861,  mentioned  above  in  chapter  iv  (Diary  and  Cor 
respondence  of  S.  P.  Chase,  American  Historical  Association  Report 
for  1902,  ii,  pp.  485,  487). 

5  Letter  of  Lincoln  to  Chase,  in  Warden's  Chase,  p.  613. 


392       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [593 

This  last  mentioned  question  of  New  York  patronage 
was  the  occasion  of  Chase's  resignation  in  June.  The  Sec 
retary  selected  Maunsell  B.  Field  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused 
by  the  resignation  of  John  J.  Cisco  as  assistant-treasurer  at 
New  York  City.  Cisco  was  a  holdover  from  the  last  ad 
ministration,  and  Senator  Morgan  had  already  presented  to 
Chase  a  complaint  that  there  were  among  the  clerks  and 
officials  under  Cisco  only  about  a  half  dozen  Union  men, 
and  that  the  rest  were  Democrats.1  Now,  Morgan  2  vigor 
ously  and  firmly  opposed  the  nomination  of  Field,  not  only 
on  the  ground  of  unfitness  but  also  for  political  reasons. 
Field  was  endorsed  by  some  of  the  most  honorable  business 
men  of  the  metropolis,  including  Jonathan  Sturgis,  Peter 
Cooper,  Phelps,  Dodge  and  Company,  as  well  as  by  ex- 
Governor  John  A.  King,  Greeley,  and  others ; 3  and  he  had 
been  recommended  by  Cisco,  under  whom  he  had  formerly 
served  before  becoming  assistant  secretary  of  the  treasury.* 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  some  evidence  that  Field,  de 
spite  his  talents,  was  not  a  suitable  man  for  the  office.5 

However  this  may  be,  the  fact  seems  to  have  been  that  the 
Weed-Seward  faction  were  determined  to  get  hold  not  merely 
of  the  assistant-treasurership  but  also  of  the  numerous  sub 
ordinate  positions  connected  therewith.6  Senator  Mor- 

1  Warden's  Chase,  p.  609,  quoting  Chase's  diary. 

2  That  Weed  was  back  of  Morgan  is  indicated  by  Weed's  writing  to 
Fessenden,  recommending  for  the  position  Morgan's  choice  (Warden's 
Chase,  p.  623,  citing  Chase's  diary). 

8  Chase's  memorandum  for  the  President,  in  Schucker's  Chase,  p.  507. 

4  Schucker's  Chase,  p.  484. 

5  Chittenden's  Recollections,  p.  371 ;  "  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,"  At 
lantic  Monthly,  Sept.  1909,  p.  348:  "  I  doubt  if  any  one  but  Chase  would 
ithink  of  him  [M.  B.  Field]   for  the  place  [assistant  treasurer  at  New 
York]  .  .  .  ";  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States,  iv,  p.  479. 

6  Schucker's  Chase,  pp.  484-5;  Hart's  Chase,  p.  315;  "Mr.  Morgan 
urged  that  the  political  result  of  his  [Field's]  appointment  would  be  ex 
tremely  unfavorable  to  the  Union  party  in  New  York"  (Nicolay  and 
Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  92. 


593]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  393 

gan  proposed  Richard  M.  Blatchford,  Dudley  S.  Gregory, 
and  Thomas  Hillhouse.  Chase  was  obdurate.  Lincoln 
refused  to  displease  Morgan  in  the  matter.1  "  By  accident 
rather  than  by  any  design  of  mine,"  the  President  was 
later  reported  to  have  said  to  Field,  "  the  radicals  have 
got  possession  of  the  most  important  offices  in  New  York 
.  .  .  Had  I  under  these  circumstances  consented  to  your 
appointment,  it  would  have  been  another  radical  triumph, 
and  I  couldn't  afford  one."  2  And  so,  though  Cisco  was 
persuaded  to  remain  in  office,  Chase  resigned.  Where 
upon  Weed  proclaimed  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal 
his  great  satisfaction,  saying,  "  Heaven  be  praised  for  this 
gleam  of  sunshine;"  3  and  in  a  later  letter,  he  wrote: 

The  despotism  from  which  I  felt  ...  a  sense  of  relief,  is 
well  understood  at  Washington.  Mr.  Chase,  in  the  exercise 
of  the  vast  patronage  of  his  department,  was  a  despot.  .  .  . 
The  organization  of  the  New  York  Custom  House  is  a  living, 
burning  disgrace.  Mr.  Chase  had  evidence  of  infamous  prac 
tices  but  refused  to  act.  .  .  .  He  has  known  for  three  years 
that  gross  custom  house  dishonesty  exists  at  Oswego.  But  he 
gave  "  no  sign."  .  .  .  There  are  other  and  grave  reasons  for 
rejoicing  that  Mr.  Chase  is  out  of  the  Cabinet.  He  abolition- 
ized  that  Cabinet ;  and  if  our  government  should  be  overthrown 
and  our  Union  severed  he,  as  the  chief  of  a  class  to  which 
Sumner,  Greeley,  Phillips,  etc.,  etc.,  belong,  will  be  responsible 
for  the  calamity.  .  .  . 

Then  came  much  more  on  the  share  of  Chase  and  his  fol 
lowers  in  prolonging  the  war,  uniting  the  South,  dividing 

1  Letter  of  Lincoln  to  Chase,  in  Schucker's  Chase,  p.  507. 

2  Maunsell  B.  Field,  Memories  of  Many  Men,  p.  300. 

3  Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  30. 


394       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [504 

the   North,   alienating   the  border   states,   etc.,   in   regular 
Democratic  style.1 

What  Weed  said  about  the  New  York  custom-house 
apparently  had  a  basis  of  truth.  Even  the  Tribune  ad 
mitted  that  there  had  been  abuses  there — wastefulness  and 
extravagance,  the  use  of  public  money  for  partisan  purposes, 
and  the  subjection  of  commerce  to  burdens;  but  the  Tribune 
excused  these  evils  by  declaring  that  they  were  of  long 
standing.2  Since  the  beginning  of  the  year,  the  pressure 
on  the  President  to  displace  Collector  Barney  had  been  very 
strong,  the  latter  not  only  having  attempted  to  oppose  the 
Weed-Seward  faction,8  but  also  having  drawn  down  upon 
himself  the  displeasure  of  some  influential  anti-Weed  men.4 
And  so,  in  February,  Lincoln  wished  Barney  to  resign  and 
accept  a  diplomatic  post ; 5  but  Barney  refused.  Then  too, 
the  Collector's  private  clerk,  A.  M.  Palmer,  who  was  a 
member  of  the  Union  State  Committee,  was  arrested  and 
lodged  in  Fort  Lafayette.  Irregularities,  moreover,  were 
discovered  in  the  office  of  one  of  Barney's  chief  subordin 
ates,  Henry  B.  Stanton,  prominent  as  a  leading  radical; 
and  he  was  dismissed.  Finally,  in  September,  Barney  re 
signed  ;  the  surveyor  of  the  port,  Rufus  Andrews,  who  was 
a  well-known  radical,  was  removed;  Simeon  Draper  was 
named  for  collector;  Postmaster  Wakeman  succeeded  An 
drews;  and  James  Kelly  was  appointed  postmaster.6 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  July  16. 

2  Tribune,  Sept.  8.     Schucker's  Chase,  p.  479,  exculpates  Barney  and 
Palmer,  though  admitting  the  existence  of  irregularities. 

3  C.    R.    Fish,    "  Lincoln   and    the    Patronage,"   quoting    Chase    MSS. 
(American  Historical  Review,  viii,  p.  62). 

4  Warden's   Chase,   p.  601 ;   Lincoln   to  Chase,   ibid.,  p.   613;    Hart's 
Chase,  p.  218. 

5  Lincoln  to  Chase,  Warden's  Chase,  p.  572 ;  Schucker's  Chase,  p.  479. 

6  Herald,  Sept.  6,  17. 


595]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  395 

Draper,  Wakeman,  and  Kelly  were  all  good  Weed  men ; * 
and  thus  this  important  patronage,  which  Weed  and  his 
followers  had  so  long  coveted,  was  at  last  captured  from  his 
adversaries. 

In  the  Union  State  Convention,  which  assembled  at 
Syracuse  on  September  7th,  with  Weed,  Greeley,  and 
Opdyke  the  notable  personages  present/  the  anti-Weed 
faction  had  the  greater  strength.  The  admission  by  a  vote 
of  150  to  1 20  of  both  delegations  from  New  York  City,3 
without  reference  to  a  committee  and  against  the  remon 
strances  of  Abram  Wakeman,4  was  apparently  a  radical 
victory.5  When  the  convention  gathered,  it  was  almost  a 
foregone  conclusion  that  Congressman  Reuben  E.  Fenton 
would  be  nominated  for  governor.6  Fenton  was  of  the 
radical  wing,1  but  nevertheless  had  managed  to  obtain  the 

1  For  Kelly's  alleged  snubbing  of  Weed,  see  p.  225,  note  5 ;  despite  this 
incident  Kelly  was  apparently  a  Weed  follower. 

2  Herald,  Sept.  7. 

3  The  differences  between  the  Unionist  factions  in  New  York  City 
had   already   engaged   the   attention    of    the   Union    State    Committee 
(Herald,  July  28),  and  formed  the  principal  point  at  issue  between 
the  two  wings  of  the  party  at  the  Syracuse  convention  (Herald,  Sept. 
8;  Tribune,  Sept.  9). 

4  Herald,  Sept.  8. 

5  Herald,  Sept.  8.     That  this  was  a  defeat  for  Weed  is  corroborated 
in   a  letter  of   Andrews   to   Weed    (Herald,   Dec.    12)    in   which   the 
former  said :   "  I  had  beaten  you  and  your  allies  and  myrmidons   in 
the  State  Conventions  of  May  and  September  1864." 

6  A  Tribune  editorial  of  August  30th  said :  "  For  Governor,  we  have 
seen  but  a  single  name  publicly  suggested — that  of  Reuben  E.  Fenton, 
.  .  .  Unless  there  are  adverse  movements  whereof  we  are  unadvised, 
his  nomination  is  already  virtually  assured." 

7  "...  it  is  his  [Fenton's]  ill-luck  to  be  claimed  by  both  factions  " 
— Argus,   Sept.  9.     Yet  an  editorial  in  the  same  paper  of  September 
8th   stated  that   Fenton   came   from  the  same  wing  of  the  party   as 
Wadsworth.     Weed    had    not    been    on    friendly    terms    with    Fenton 
(Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  444). 


396       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [596 

support  of  Weed  or  at  least  acceptance  by  him.1  Rev.  Dr. 
Dix  in  his  Memoirs  of  John  A.  Dix  says  that  Weed,  though 
anxious  to  have  the  General  head  the  ticket,  had  "  by  a  com 
bination  of  untoward  circumstances  been  placed  in  a  posi 
tion  in  which  he  was  unable  and  unwilling  to  act."  2  Yet, 
on  the  floor  of  the  convention  a  delegate  brought  forth  once 
more  Dix's  name.  It  was  hailed  with  applause.  However, 
doubts  were  expressed  as  to  whether  Dix  was  willing  to 
stand  fully  and  without  reserve  on  the  party  platform 
(though  of  course  no  one  questioned  his  patriotism  or  loy 
alty  to  the  administration).  Then  too,  it  was  announced 
that  Dix  had  written  that  he  could  not  accept  the  nomina 
tion.3  The  Tribune  subsequently  stated  editorially  "  Had 
he  [Dix]  simply  said,  '  I  am  of  and  with  the  Union  party, 
and  will  serve  it  as  it  shall  deem  best/  he  would  have  been 
nominated  by  acclamation."  4  Lyman  Tremain  also  was 
nominated.  The  ballot  resulted  as  follows:  Fenton 
247^2  ;  Tremain  69 ;  Dix  35^2.B  This  outcome  was  probably 
due  to  a  division  in  the  radical  ranks  between  Fenton  and 
Tremain,  and  to  the  support  of  the  former  by  the  Weed 
adherents.6  The  balloting  for  the  nomination  for  lieuten 
ant-governor  resulted  in  that  place  going  to  an  anti-Weed 
man,  Thomas  G.  Alvord,  who  received  246  votes  to  96)^ 
for  Waldo  Hutchins,  19  for  Richard  M.  Blatchford,  and  35 
scattering.  Both  Alvord  and  Hutchins  were  radicals, 

1  Barnes'  Memoir  of  Weed,  p.  444. 

2  Dix's  Memoirs  of  John  A.  Dix,  ii,  pp.  171,  173. 

3  Herald,  Sept.  8.    This  letter,  addressed  to  Ward  Hunt,  is  printed 
in  the  Tribune,  Sept  12.     See  also  Dix's  Memoirs  of  John  A.  Dix,  ii, 
P-  173- 

4  Tribune,  Sept.  9. 

5  Herald,  Sept.  8. 

6  Herald,  Sept.  n. 


(597]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  397 

while  Blatchford  belonged  to  the  Weed-Seward  faction. 
The  large  majority  of  the  first  named  was  due  to  the  fact 
that  Hutchins  was  less  acceptable  to  the  Weed  delegates, 
who  accordingly  changed  from  Blatchford  to  Alvord.1  An 
other  indication  of  the  strength  of  the  anti-Weed  men  in 
the  convention  was  the  ballot  on  presidential  electors  at 
large.  This  resulted  as  follows:  Horace  Greeley  215,  Pres 
ton  King  191  y2,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson  143,  Richard  M. 
Blatchford  86,  J.  S.  T.  Stranahan  27,  scattering  24,"  Greeley 
and  King  being  thus  chosen. 

The  resolutions  which  were  adopted,  strongly  favored  the 
continuance  of  the  war  until  the  rebels  submitted,  made  a 
bid  for  the  support  of  the  soldiers  by  pointing  to  "  the  sig 
nificant  fact  that  not  one  State  whose  legislation  is  con 
trolled  by  our  political  adversaries  has  authorized  and  en 
abled  our  soldiers  to  vote,"  and  emphasized  the  recent  vic 
tories  of  the  Union  armies.  Seymour's  record  as  governor, 
however,  was  not  attacked.3 

As  has  been  said,  the  peace  men  in  New  York  State  were 
very  active  during  the  summer  of  1864,  aiming  to  influence 
the  action  of  the  forthcoming  Democratic  National  Con 
vention.  Fernando  Wood  was  the  leading  spirit  in  this 
agitation.  It  was  alleged  by  his  enemies,  both  Democratic 
and  Unionist,  that  the  movement  was  simply  an  artifice  of 
the  Mozart  chief  to  enable  him  to  drive  fresh  bargains  4 — a 
likely  accusation  so  far  as  Wood's  own  share  was  concerned, 
considering  his  past  career.  At  this  time  Wood  had  need 
of  all  his  cunning.  His  senatorial  ambitions  had  been  de 
feated,  both  he  and  his  brother  Ben  had  been  utterly  dis 
regarded  at  the  Democratic  State  Convention,  Mozart 


1  Herald,  Sept.  8. 

2  Ibid.  3  Ibid. 

4  Tribune,  June  23 ;  Herald,  June  18,  Aug.  22. 


398       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [598 

Hall  had  recently  split  into  two  rival  organizations,1  and 
John  McKeon  was  a  power  at  the  New  York  City  Hall.2 
In  June,  1864,  the  state  committee  which  had  been  created 
by  Wood's  mass  peace  convention  in  the  previous  year, 
assembled  again.3  The  New  York  Copperheads  kept  in 
touch  with  those  of  other  states,  for  leading  peace  Demo 
crats  from  without  were  present  on  this  occasion.  At  a 
similar  consultation  a  month  later,  with  such  distinguished 
Copperheads  as  Voorhees  of  Indiana  and  Singleton  of  Illi 
nois  in  attendance,  it  was  resolved  to  hold  another  mass 
peace  convention  at  Syracuse.4  A  few  days  later,  Singleton 
and  Congressman  Brooks  addressed  a  slimly  attended  peace 
meeting  in  New  York  City.5  At  the  beginning  of  August, 
the  Mozart  Hall  General  Committee  unanimously  adopted 
resolutions  declaring  that  "  the  masses  of  the  Democratic 
party  in  this  city  and  State  are  for  peace,  for  an  immediate 
cessation  of  hostilities,  and  for  the  instant  inauguration  of 
negotiations  for  ending  the  present  war;  and  that  we  de 
mand  a  platform  favoring  an  armistice  and  a  convention  of 
States  from  the  Chicago  Presidential  Convention."  The 
resolutions  further  instructed  such  delegates  as  belonged  to 
the  Mozart  General  Committee  and  recommended  to  the 
rest  of  the  New  York  delegation  to  vote  for  no  man  for 
the  presidential  or  vice-presidential  nomination  who  favored 

1  Herald,  Aug.  4  6.     An  advertisement  in  the  Herald  of  August  4th 
stated  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  Regular  Mozart  Hall  General  Com 
mittee,  it  was  resolved  "  That  we  revoke  the  power   delegated  to  a 
special  committee  of  five  to  dispense  the  patronage  of  Mozart  Hall, 
and  which  has  been  exercised  only  by  one  man  to  the  detriment  of 
the  party." 

2  Herald,  Aug.  22. 

3  Herald,  June  22 ;  Tribune,  June  22,  23. 

4  Tribune,  July  23. 

5  Herald,  July  27;  Tribune,  July  27. 


599]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  399 

"  the  further  prosecution  cf  this  useless,  bloody  and  ruin 
ous  war."  * 

The  mass  peace  convention  met  at  Syracuse  on  August 
i8th.  The  attitude  of  the  Argus  toward  this  body  shows 
how  far  the  Regency  wing — the  main  body  of  Democrats 
in  the  State — had  progressed  toward  Copperheadism.  Be 
fore  the  editor  discovered  that  this  movement  was  to  be 
used  as  a  lever  to  work  against  the  Regency,  the  Argus 
spoke  of  the  convention  and  its  objects  in  a  sympathetic 
tone.  An  editorial  said: 

It  has  been  the  custom  of  the  Republicans  ...  to  denounce 
men  who  talked  about  peace,  but  that  time  has  now  gone  by. 
.  .  .  Out  of  the  afflictions  of  the  country,  the  conviction  has 
grown  upon  their  [the  people's]  minds,  that  there  must  at 
some  time  be  an  end  of  war — that  peace  can  never  return  to 
us  except  by  a  conference  between  those  engaged  in  deadly 
conflict — that  it  would  be  honorable  to  us — honorable  to  both 
belligerents,  under  a  suspension  of  hostilities,  to  freely  confer 
together  through  the  medium  of  a  National  Convention,  con 
cerning  the  possibility  of  terminating  this  strife  and  of  restor 
ing  fraternal  relations  on  the  basis  of  a  continuance  of  the 
Federal  Union.2 

Two  days  later,  the  same  journal  declared  that  it  "  did  not 
wonder  .  .  .  that  the  Peace  Party  was  inspirited  and  en 
couraged  by  the  revolting  aspects  which  Mr.  Lincoln's 
course,  his  general  mal-administration,  and  the  resulting 
failures  of  our  army,  had  lent  to  the  war  question,  and  by 
the  reaction  of  public  sentiment  against  him."  3  If  the 
Argus  did  not  here  pronounce  the  war  a  failure,  it  plainly 
showed  that  it  was  not  inclined  to  disagree  with  those  who 

1  Herald,  Aug.  5. 

2  Argus,  Aug.  18. 

3  Argus,  Aug.  20. 


400       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [600 

thought  so,  provided  only  that  they  acted  under  the  leader 
ship  of  the  state  organization. 

At  the  convention  it  was  evident  that  the  Copperhead 
strength  was  not  limited  to  the  metropolitan  district;  for 
large  delegations  from  the  cities  in  the  central  part  of  the 
State  were  reported  as  present.  Crowds  gathered  at  two 
open  air  assemblages  in  the  afternoon.  At  the  evening 
meeting,  the  hall  was  packed.  The  principal  attractions 
were  Vallandigham,  ex-Governor  Weller  of  California,  and 
Fernando  Wood.  Vallandigham  received  an  enthusiastic 
welcome  and  his  thoroughgoing  peace  speech  of  more  than 
an  hour's  length  was  listened  to  with  attention  and  received 
with  applause.  An  ultra  peace  address  and  a  series  of  reso 
lutions  were  presented  and  adopted,  though  there  was  some 
doubt  as  to  whether  the  next  to  the  last  resolution  was 
carried  or  not.1  This  provided  for  a  committee  to  go  to  the 
Chicago  convention,  there  to  represent  and  advocate  the 
opinions  of  the  New  York  peace  Democracy.  Those  who 
engineered  the  affair  declared  that  this  resolution  had  been 
adopted,  and  the  committee  including  Fernando  Wood  was 
duly  appointed.  In  fact,  Wood  apparently  was  playing  a 
game  but  slightly  different  from  that  which  he  tried  to  use 
at  Charleston  four  years  before.  The  other  resolutions  ex 
pressed  the  belief  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  coming  Chicago 
convention 

to  give  expression  to  this  beneficent  spirit  of  peace  and  to  de 
clare  as  the  purpose  of  the  Democratic  party,  if  it  shall  recover 
power,  to  cause  this  desolating  war  to  cease  by  the  calling  of  a 
national  convention,  in  which  all  the  States  shall  be  repre 
sented  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  that  to  this  end  an  immediate 

1  Herald,  Aug.  19,  26  (containing  a  letter  of  S.  T.  Suit,  secretary 
of  the  peace  delegation  to  the  editor  of  the  World,  denying  that  the 
'resolution  in  question  was  stricken  out). 


6oi]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  401 

armistice  shall  be  declared.  .  .  .  That  if  in  the  platform  and 
candidates  of  the  Chicago  Convention  the  now  pervading 
peace  sentiments  of  the  country  shall  be  disregarded,  and  that 
body  shall  place  another  war  candidate  and  platform  before 
the  people,  .  .  .  there  will  be  no  real  issue  to  decide  at  that 
election. 

Further,  they  condemned  at  great  length  the  actions  of  the 
administration  as  arbitrary  and  despotic,  and  asserted  that 
the  reply  of  the  President  to  Messrs.  Clay  and  Holcomb  l 
was 

an  official  avowal  that  the  object  of  the  war  is  not  for  the 
restoration  of  the  Union,  but  the  destruction  of  slavery  in  the 
Southern  States  or  permanent  separation,  and  furnishes  un 
mistakable  evidence  that  the  party  now  in  power  have  deluded 
the  people  into  the  granting  of  unlimited  means  and  money 
for  .  .  .  preserving  the  Union,  which  they  have  used  and  are 
still  using  for  the  base  end  of  overthrowing  State  institutions, 
advancing  party  interests  and  establishing  them  in  permanent 
despotic  power. 

Finally,  a  state  committee  was  designated.2 

On  the  other  hand,  there  was  an  organized  movement  in 
New  York,  led  by  Hiram  Ketchum,  Jr.,  in  behalf  of  the 
nomination  of  McClellan.  As  early  as  March  I7th  a 
crowded  and  enthusiastic  mass-meeting,  presided  over  by 
Amos  Kendall,  postmaster-general  under  Jackson,  was  held 
at  Cooper  Institute  with  this  object  in  view.3  But  the  local 
politicians  of  prominence  held  aloof.4  By  the  beginning 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  342,  note  i. 

2  Herald,  Aug.  19;  Argus,  Aug.  20. 

3  Herald,  Mar.  18 ;  Tribune,  Mar.  18. 

4  At   a    McClellan   meeting   in    New    York    City   in    August,    Hiram 
Ketchum,    Jr.    stated  that   "when   they   commenced   to   organize   Me- 


402       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [602 

of  summer,  McClellan  ward  organizations  and  a  central 
executive  committee  had  been  formed.1  These  men  co 
operated  with  McClellan  advocates  of  other  states  in  taking 
steps  toward  the  holding  of  a  convention  of  the  "  conserva 
tive  "  voters  of  the  country  at  Chicago  on  July  2nd,~  in 
tending  of  course  to  influence  the  Democratic  National  Con 
vention  called  to  meet  two  days  later  at  the  same  place. 
Upon  the  postponement  of  the  latter  body  to  August  29th, 
the  date  of  the  "  Union  Conservative  National  Conven 
tion  "  was  fixed  for  August  2/th.3  In  August  McClellan 
meetings  were  held  by  the  various  ward  associations  of  New 
York  City; 4  and  on  the  evening  of  August  loth  a  monster 
demonstration  took  place  in  Union  Square.  Here  again, 
among  those  who  addressed  this  gathering,  men  of  political 
prominence,  with  the  exceptions  of  John  B.  Haskin,  Isaiah 
Rynders,  and  Hiram  Ketchum,  were  conspicuous  by  their 
absence.5  Later,  Ketchum  was  appointed  by  the  McClellan 
State  Central  Committee  to  proceed  to  Chicago  to  further 
McClellan's  nomination.6  Thus  far  Tammany  Hall  had 

Clellan  clubs  in  the  City  of  New  York,  there  was  hardly  a  politician 
but  what  shook  his  head  and  said  that  it  was  no  go.  After  they  had 
gained  a  little  strength,  a  meeting  was  held  in  Cooper  Institute,  but 
not  a  single  man  of  political  eminence  could  be  found  in  the  city  to 
act  as  president,  so  that  the  committee  were  obliged  to  import  Amos 
Kendall  from  Washington"  (Herald,  Aug.  11). 

1  Herald,  June  16.  2  Ibid. 

8  Herald,  June  26. 

4  Herald,  Aug.  5,  6,  9. 

5  Herald,  Aug.  11 ;  Tribune,  Aug.  11.     The  Herald  estimated  the  num 
ber  present  as  not  less  than  one  hundred  thousand ;  the  Times  at  thirty 
thousand;  the  Sun  at  least  sixty  thousand;  the  Journal  of  Commerce 
seventy-five  thousand.     The  Tribune,  while  admitting  that  it  "was  a 
large  meeting,"  thought  that  this  demonstration  was  not  half  so  large 
as   the   war   meeting    following   the    fall    of    Fort    Sumter    (Tribune, 
Aug.  12. 

6  Herald,  Aug.  18. 


603]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  403 

• 
been   silent;  but  just  before  the  convention  her  General 

Committee  enthusiastically  and  unanimously  adopted  reso 
lutions  in  favor  of  McClellan.1 

About  a  week  before  the  delegates  gathered  in  Chi 
cago,  the  Argus  came  out  with  an  authoritative  announce 
ment  that  Governor  Seymour  would  not  be  a  candidate 
for  the  presidency.2  Yet,  when  the  convention  met,  the 
peace  men  led  by  the  two  Woods  revived  the  talk  of 
naming  Seymour  with  the  intention  probably  of  using  him 
to  kill  off  McClellan.3  Around  the  hotels  the  anti-McClel- 
lanites  talked  much,  and  betting  by  outsiders  that  McClellan 
would  not  be  nominated  was  lively.4  Dean  Richmond, 
however,  was  firm  for  the  General,5  and  a  majority  of 
the  New  York  delegation  was  for  him.8  On  Saturday, 
August  27th,  the  delegation  caucused  and  organized.  Sev 
eral  of  the  members  having  been  delayed  by  the  railroads, 
the  McClellan  supporters  sought  to  fill  the  vacancies  and 
to  take  an  informal  ballot  on  a  candidate  for  the  presiden 
tial  nomination.  These  steps  were  stoutly  opposed  by 
Cozans  and  McKeon  of  New  York  City.  Governor  Sey 
mour  favored  postponing  a  vote  in  order  that  further  con 
sultation  might  be  held;  while  beseeching  his  friends  to 
abandon  further  thought  of  his  own  name  and  acknowl 
edging  the  unequaled  popularity  of  McClellan,  he  sug 
gested  Judge  Nelson  and  James  Guthrie  as  men  whose  ex 
perience  perhaps  fitted  them  better  for  the  office  than  Mc- 

1  Herald,  Aug.  27 ;  Tribune,  Aug.  29. 

2  Argus,  Aug.  19. 

3  Herald,  Aug.  28,  Sept.  5 ;  dispatch  to  the  World,  Aug.  29,  signed 
M.  M.  (probably  Manton  Marble)  ;  Argus,  Aug.  30. 

4  Herald,  Sept.  5 ;  Tribune,  Sept.  5. 

5  Herald,  Aug.  28. 

6  Herald,  Aug.  28,  29;  Tribune,  Aug.  31. 


404       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [604 

Clellan's.  Samuel  J.  Tilden  followed  with  a  long  speech. 
He  declared  that  Nelson  was  too  old  and  Guthrie  not  popu 
lar;  Seymour's  withdrawal  having  been  reiterated,  he 
(Tilden)  should  vote  for  McClellan.  The  supporters  of 
the  General  had  shown  their  overwhelming  superiority  by 
defeating  a  resolution  offered  by  one  of  the  anti-McClellan 
men;  but  in  deference  to  the  wishes  of  the  minority,  the 
delegation  adjourned  to  Monday.1 

This  prolonged  session  of  the  New  York  delegation  with 
out  taking  a  vote  for  a  candidate  revived  the  hopes  of 
the  opponents  of  McClellan  that  New  York  might  give 
a  complimentary  vote  to  Seymour.2  Though  the  delega 
tion  of  every  state,  save  New  York,  Kansas,  and  Iowa 
had  now  caucused,  with  the  result  that  McClellan  had 
a  majority  in  all  except  Ohio,  yet  if  New  York  stood 
by  Seymour,  McClellan  could  hardly  obtain  the  neces 
sary  two-thirds  vote.  Yet  this  by  no  means  meant  that 
Seymour  would  be  nominated — a  fact  which  the  Regency 
leaders  doubtless  considered.  On  the  following  Monday 
morning  the  New  York  delegation  again  met.  Seymour 
made  a  speech  declaring  that  he  had  no  idea  of  allowing  the 
use  of  his  name  for  the  presidential  nomination.  A  ballot 
was  then  taken,  resulting  in  McClellan  receiving  55  votes, 
Judge  Nelson  9,  Guthrie  i,  and  Charles  O'Conor  i.1 

On  the  same  day,  the  convention  was  called  to  order  by 
August  Belmont.  Governor  Seymour  was  chosen  presi 
dent  of  the  assemblage,  and  on  taking  the  chair  made  a  long 

1  Special  dispatch  to  the  New  York  World,  Aug.  29,  signed  M.  M. 
(probably  Manton  Marble). 

2  Herald,  Aug.  29. 

3  Herald,    Aug.    30,    corrected    by    correspondence    published    in    the 
Herald,  Sept.  5. 


605]  PRESIDENTIAL  NOMINATIONS  OF  1864  405 

speech  embodying  sentiments  to  which  he  had  so  often  given 
utterance  since  the  beginning  of  the  war.1  No  ballot  for 
the  presidential  nomination  was  taken  during  the  first  day's 
session,  though  several  bitter  speeches  against  McClellan 
were  made.  Meanwhile,  Samuel  J.  Tilden  was  said  to  have 
fought  strenuously  in  the  committee  on  resolutions  against 
Vallandigham  and  the  extreme  peace  men.2  Vallandigham 
himself  subsequently  boasted  that  he  had  carried  the  second 
resolution  of  the  platform — the  one  declaring  the  war  a 
failure — through  the  sub-committee  and  the  committee  "  in 
spite  of  the  most  desperate  and  persistent  opposition  on  the 
part  of  William  Cassidy,  editor  of  the  Albany  Argus,  and 
his  friends."  3 

On  that  night  the  peace  men,  including  Harris  and  Long 
of  Ohio,  the  two  Woods,  and  the  committee  from  the  Syra 
cuse  peace  convention,  worked  hard  to  prevent  McClellan's 
nomination.  An  anti-McClellan  demonstration  was  held, 
and  efforts  were  made  to  unite  upon  Seymour  those  who 
were  against  the  General.4  The  former,  however,  refused 
under  any  circumstances  to  permit  his  name  to  be  used.5 
Yet,  when  the  ballot  in  the  convention  was  taken,  some  dele 
gates  gave  their  votes  for  him;  but  the  Governor  directed 
that  they  be  announced  as  having  been  cast  for  Seymour 
of  Connecticut.6  In  the  selection  of  the  vice-presidential 
candidate,  New  York's  action  was  decisive.  On  the 
first  ballot,  Guthrie  of  Kentucky  led.  He  probably  would 

1  Herald,  Aug.  31. 

2  Herald,  Sept.  5 ;  Cook's  Life  of  Tilden,  p.  82. 

3  Letter  of  Vallandigham,  dated  Oct.  22,  1864,  printed  in  the  Herald, 
Oct.  27.     The  Argus  denied  the  allegation  of  Vallandigham.     It  said, 
"Mr.  Cassidy  took  no  part  in  the  matter"  (Argus,  Oct.  28). 

4  Herald,  Aug.  31,  Sept.  i. 

5  Herald,  Sept.  i ;  Tribune,  Sept.  5. 

6  Herald,  Sept.  i ;  Tribune,  Sept.  5. 


4o6       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [606 

have  been  nominated,  but  for  the  fact  that  the  New  York 
delegation,  in  order  to  appease  those  dissatisfied  with  the 
choice  of  McClellan  for  first  place,  changed  to  Pendleton 
on  the  second  ballot.1  Pennsylvania  followed  New  York's 
example;  and  thus  in  addition  to  the  platform,  the  Demo 
cratic  ticket  was  handicapped  with  a  candidate  of  peace  pro 
clivities.  Since  it  does  not  appear  that  Dean  Richmond  or 
his  representatives  made  any  fight  outside  of  the  committee 
against  the  platform  or  against  the  nomination  of  Pendle 
ton,  it  can  scarcely  be  claimed  that  the  New  York  leader 
exhibited  on  this  occasion  any  great  political  sagacity. 

1  Herald,  Sept.  5 ;  Tribune,  Sept.  5  supports  this  indirectly. 


CHAPTER  XV 
THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY 

THAT  the  Unionists  of  this  State  did  not  suffer  from 
their  dissensions  as  much  as  might  have  been  expected,  was 
due  to  the  overshadowing  nature  of  the  issues  arising  from 
the  war.  At  the  same  time  that  the  Copperhead  press  of  the 
metropolis  was  spreading  incendiary  sentiments,  while  the 
peace  advocates  were  active  and  many  Southern  men  and 
women  were  in  New  York  City,1  Governor  Seymour's  ac 
tions  during  the  spring  and  summer  of  1864  were  such  as  to 
make  administration  supporters  realize  the  necessity  of  lay 
ing  aside  factional  quarrels.  Two  judges  of  the  New  York 
Supreme  Court  had  already  rendered  decisions  holding  that 
the  state  tribunals  had  the  right  to  inquire  into  the  legality  of 
detention  in  the  case  of  a  soldier  in  the  federal  service,  for 
whose  discharge  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  had  been  issued 
by  a  state  court.2  Would  Seymour  support  the  judiciary 
with  force,  if  necessary?  In  the  case  of  the  draft,  he 
privately  admitted  that  forcible  resistance  would  aid  rather 
than  embarrass  the  government.3  Moreover,  we  are  now 
in  a  position  to  see  that  his  whole  nature  was  disinclined 
to  violence,  however  much  he  might  have  desired  to  bring 
to  a  clear  issue  of  law  the  questions  wherein  he  opposed  the 

1  Tribune,  July  26,  as  to  Southerners  in  New  York  City. 

2  Argus,  Aug.  26;  Annual  Cyclopedia  for  1863,  pp.  488,  489. 

3  Letter  of   Seymour  to  Tilden,  dated  Aug.  6,  1863,  in  Letters  and 
Literary  Memorials  of  Samuel  J .  Tilden,  i,  p.  184. 

607]  407 


4o8       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [608 

administration.  But  at  the  time,  men  did  not  perceive  all 
this.  And  Seymour's  official  acts  more  than  once  placed 
him  on  the  verge  of  that  attitude  which  loyal  people  feared 
and  Copperheads  hoped  for. 

The  seizure  of  the  New  York  World  and  the  New  York 
Journal  of  Commerce  x  on  the  iQ'th  of  May  and  the  arrest 
of  their  editors  produced  great  indignation  among  Demo 
crats.  The  Albany  Argus  fumed.  "  It  behooves  citizens 
of  the  State,"  it  said  in  one  editorial,  "  to  consult,  in  a  time 
like  this,  in  regard  to  what  action  shall  be  taken — not  what 
words  shall  be  uttered — to  protect  their  rights."  2  Sey 
mour  directed  the  district  attorney  of  New  York  County, 
A.  Oakey  Hall,  to  inquire  into  the  facts  connected  with  the 
occurrence  and  to  prosecute  any  one  who  had  acted  illegally. 
The  Governor  said  that  his  proclamation  at  the  time  of  the 
draft  riot,  giving  warning  that  "  the  laws  of  the  State  must 
be  enforced,  its  peace  and  order  maintained,  and  the  prop 
erty  of  its  citizens  protected  at  every  hazard,"  was  not 
intended  merely  for  that  occasion  or  against  any  particular 
class  of  men.  Any  action  against  the  editors  of  the  sup 
pressed  papers  outside  of  legal  procedure  was  criminal. 

Our  soldiers  in  the  field  will  battle  in  vain  for  constitutional 
liberty  if  persons  or  property  or  opinions  are  trampled  upon 
at  home.  .  .  .  They  must  not  find  when  they  come  back  that 
their  personal  and  fireside  rights  have  been  despoiled.  In 
addition  to  the  general  obligation  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the 
land,  there  are  local  reasons  why  they  must  be  upheld  in  the 
city  of  New  York.  If  they  are  not,  its  commerce  and  great 
ness  will  be  broken  down ; 

and  the  Governor  enlarged  upon  this  congenial  theme  and 

1  For  this  incident,  see  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States,  iv,  p. 
468. 

2  Argus,  May  23;  also  Argus,  May  25,  26,  for  editorials,  articles,  etc., 
denouncing  the  seizure. 


609]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  409 

upon  the  fourth  and  fifth  amendments  to  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States.  He  concluded  that  the  state  and  local 
authorities  must  repel  the  ruinous  inference  that  such  arbi 
trary  actions  could  be  tolerated  in  New  York.  "  In  mak 
ing  your  inquiries,  and  in  prosecuting  the  parties  implicated, 
you  will  call  upon  the  sheriff  of  the  county  and  the  heads 
of  the  police  department  for  any  needed  assistance.  The 
failure  to  give  this  by  any  official  under  my  control  will  be 
deemed  a  sufficient  cause  for  his  removal."  x 

A  Democratic  judge,  Russel,  instructed  the  grand  jury 
that,  if  the  laws  of  the  State  in  reference  to  the  protection 
of  person  and  property  had  been  violated,  the  parties  con 
cerned,  no  matter  what  their  station,  must  answer  for  the 
wrong;  nor  could  any  order  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  or  other  official  be  any  protection  to  those  executing 
it;  if  those  who  took  and  maintained  forcible  possession  of 
the  newspaper  establishments  numbered  three  or  more,  they 
were  liable  as  for  a  riot.2  The  grand  jury,  however,  re 
fused  to  bring  in  an  indictment,  declaring  that  it  was  in 
expedient  to  inquire  into  the  subject.3 

Seymour  promptly  enjoined  upon  District  Attorney  Hall 
to  lay  the  matter  before  a  proper  magistrate.4  Hall  accord 
ingly  went  before  Judge  Russel  and  formally  accused  Gen 
eral  Dix  and  his  subordinates  concerned  in  the  seizure,  of 
kidnapping,  inciting  a  riot,  and  forcibly  entering  and  detain 
ing  property.5  Russel  thereupon  granted  warrants  for  the 
arrest  of  General  Dix  and  others.6  Dix's  counsel  announced 
that  the  General  was  willing  to  submit  himself  to  the  civil 

1  Seymour  to  District  Attorney  Hall,  printed  in  the  Herald,  May  25. 

2  Herald,  June  14. 

3  Herald,  June  25 ;  letter  of  Seymour  to  Hall,  Herald,  July  2. 

4  Letter  of  Seymour  to  Hall,  printed  in  the  Herald,  July  2. 

5  Herald,  July  2.  6  Ibid. 


4IO       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [610 

authorities ; x  but  subsequently  Lincoln  directed  Dix  not  to 
relieve  himself  of  his  command  during  the  war  or  to  per 
mit  himself  to  be  deprived  of  his  liberty  because  of  obeying 
a  military  order  of  the  President.2  Seymour  now  wrote 
to  the  District  Attorney  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  State 
irrespective  of  the  orders  of  the  President.3  Argument 
was  heard  in  court,  Dix's  counsel,  Edwards  Pierrepont  and 
William  M.  Evarts,  pleading  the  act  of  March  3,  1863  as 
protecting  their  client.  Judge  Russel's  decision  referred  the 
case  again  to  the  grand  jury,5  and  that  was  as  far  as  the 
matter  went.  The  Governor,  after  so  much  bluster,  once 
more  disappointed  the  Copperheads.  Whatever  political 
capital  the  Democrats  might  have  gotten  by  the  arbitrary 
suppression  of  the  two  newspapers  was  probably  lost  by  a 
weak  endeavor  in  the  midst  of  a  civil  war  to  arrest  and  pun 
ish  the  military  commander  of  the  district  for  obeying  the 
orders  of  his  official  superior. 

The  Governor's  course  in  connection  with  the  President's 
call  on  New  York  State  for  12,000  one  hundred  days  men8 
to  aid  in  repelling  Early  was  not  what  it  ought  to  have  been. 
True,  Seymour  had  been  most  wrongfully  blamed  for  leav 
ing  New  York  City  unprotected  by  ordering  its  militia  to 
Pennsylvania  in  1863  and  the  outrageous  accusation  had 
been  made  that  he  had  done  this  as  part  of  a  Copperhead 
conspiracy  to  leave  the  draft  rioters  full  play.7  It  was  also 

1  Herald,  July  2.  2  Herald,  July  7.         3  Herald,  July  8. 

4  Herald,  July  10 ;  for  this  act,  cf.  supra,  p.  346. 

5  Herald,  Aug.  7. 

6  For  the  hundred   days  men,   see   Rhodes'   History   of   the    United 
States,  iv,  p.  498,  note  5. 

7  Supra,  p.  322.    As  a  sample,  the  following  from  a  Tribune  editorial 
of  July  Qth  may  be  quoted :  "  It  is  quite  time  that  the  eminent  friend  of 
these  rioters  should  get  up  another  diversion  in  favor  of  Jeff  Davis  & 
Co.,  and  manage  it  better  than  the  last  was  engineered." 


6n]      THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY      411 

true  that  the  Union  legislators  had  shown  a  distrust  of  the 
Governor  by  not  providing  appropriations  for  an  increase 
in  the  militia.  Then  too,  there  was  some  danger  of  rebel  in 
vasion  from  Canada.  Moreover,  most  of  the  state  forces 
were  in  New  York  City  and  Brooklyn  and  it  was  necessary 
to  guard  against  further  outbreaks  like  that  of  the  previous 
year.  Yet,  it  seems  that  Seymour  had  a  sufficient  number  of 
regiments  at  his  disposal  to  have  been  able,  without  danger 
of  domestic  disturbance,  to  have  ordered  some  of  them  to 
the  front.1  He  sent  eight  hundred  men  and  designated  as 
the  remainder  of  the  quota  seven  other  regiments  as  yet  but 
little  more  than  skeleton  organizations  and  hence  having 

1  Both  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  and  the  Argus  defended  Seymour 
on  this  occasion.  The  former  claimed  that  there  were  but  15,000 
militia  in  the  State,  of  which  9,000  at  least  were  in  New  York  City 
and  Brooklyn ;  that  they  were  "  distributed  through  skeleton  regi 
ments  "  and  could  hardly  be  made  available  except  in  a  few  cases,  un 
less  the  regiments  were  consolidated  or  filled  up  (Albany  Evening 
Journal,  July  9).  The  New  York  City  papers,  however,  gave  no 
hints  that  such  was  the  state  of  the  militia  there.  During  1863,  eigh 
teen  regiments  had  been  organized  and  completed  (supra,  p.  361).  The 
Argus  in  defense  of  the  Governor  said :  "  Why  did  not  the  President 
announce  that  troops  were  wanted  for  the  special  duty  of  repelling  the 
invasion  and  guarding  Washington?  Doubtless  any  number  of  volun 
teer  militia  could  have  been  raised  and  sent  forward  ere  this  for  such 
a  special  purpose.  But  no  such  assurance  has  been  given.  Men  were 
called  for  one  hundred  days,  and  to  the  inquiry  whether  thirty  day 
men  would  be  received  it  was  answered,  '  they  would  be  of  no  use 
to  General  Grant.'  They  certainly  would  be  of  use  in  defence  of  the 
Capital  against  this  raid;  but  they  would  not  be  available  to  the 
front  [fie]  in  the  campaign  against  Richmond.  There  is  no  question 
that  the  militia  have  misgivings  and  hesitations  on  this  point.  Most 
of  the  regiments  would  hasten  to  the  defence  of  the  Capital;  but 
many  of  them  would  hesitate  to  volunteer  for  one  hundred  days 
against  Richmond."  Even  if  all  the  facts  were  as  the  Argus  stated, 
still  Seymour  does  not  appear  in  this  affair  as  an  ardent  supporter  of 
the  government.  Morton  or  Curtin  would  hardly  have  acted  as  Sey 
mour  then  did. 


YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [612 

first  to  fill  up  their  ranks.1  He  also  issued  another  procla 
mation,2  appealing  to  the  people  of  New  York  to  join  the 
National  Guard.  "  Unless  this  is  done  at  once,"  he  said, 
"  I  cannot  respond  to  the  call  now  made  by  the  President;" 
and  then  came  a  constitutional  essay  on  the  value  of  militia. 
At  that  time,  the  Confederates  were  close  to  Washington! 
Seymour's  order  to  increase  the  militia  by  75,000  un 
fortunately  was  issued  at  about  the  same  time  that  he  took 
his  decided  stand  against  General  Dix.  Consequently,  the 
Governor  did  not  escape  suspicions  that  he  desired  this  large 
body  of  troops  to  defend  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  of 
New  York  against  the  national  government.  The  hopes 
of  the  Daily  News  were  apparently  revived  by  the  Gov 
ernor's  action.  The  News  said : 

Our  State  sovereignty  has  been  insulted  and  assailed  so  often 
with  impunity,  that  most  of  our  citizens  had  given  up  all  hope 
of  protection  from  the  State  Executive.  We  believe,  how 
ever,  that  Governor  Seymour  has  finally  become  impressed 
with  a  sense  of  the  necessity  for  his  official  interference  in 
behalf  of  the  interests  of  the  Commonwealth.3 

One  of  Seymour's  brigadiers,  John  A.  Green,  once  chairman 
of  the  Breckinridge  State  Committee  and  a  notorious  Cop 
perhead,  issued  a  general  order  in  response  to  the  Gover 
nor's  call  for  militia,  in  which  he  said : 

In  addition  to  the  dangers  of  invasion  from  without  and  of 
popular  discontents  at  home,  we  have  been  warned  by  recent 
events  of  the  still  greater  danger  of  arbitrary  encroachments 
upon  our  liberties  as  citizens.  The  laws  of  New  York  have 
already  been  deliberately  set  at  defiance.  Men  have  been  in- 

1  Herald,  July  13. 

2  Printed  in  the  Herald,  July  14. 

3  New  York  News,  quoted  by  the  Tribune,  July  14. 


613]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  413 

carcerated  without  warrant  of  law ;  their  property  seized ;  the 
freedom  of  the  press  has  been  unlawfully  restrained  by  the 
armed  hand;  .  .  .  We  must  be  prepared  for  all  emergencies 
while  there  is  yet  time.1 

In  the  end,  New  York's  quota  was  not  sent  to  the  front  in 
time  to  be  of  service.  A  dispute  arose  between  Seymour 
and  the  war  department  as  to  whether  the  men  forwarded 
in  response  to  this  call  would  be  liable  to  the  coming  draft ; 
and  the  Governor,  not  liking  the  decision  made  at  Wash 
ington,  withheld  the  troops.2 

The  new  draft  in  the  autumn  of  1864  caused  a  recur 
rence  of  seditious  editorials  in  the  Copperhead  press,3  and 
still  worse,  more  friction  between  the  war  department  and 
Seymour.  It  was  the  same  old  difference  over  the  en 
rolment  and  the  quotas.4  One  thing  which  the  Governor 
emphasized  was  coming  to  be  appreciated  by  adherents  of 
the  administration  too,  and  that  was  the  burden1  of  taxation 
caused  by  the  excessive  quotas.5  Chairman  Blunt  of  the  New 
York  County  Volunteer  Committee,  late  Union  candidate 
for  mayor,  and  ex-Mayor  Opdyke  agreed  that  the  enrol 
ment  in  New  York  City  was  very  imperfect  and  that  the 

1  Tribune,  July  14,  quoting  the  Syracuse  Courier. 

2  Herald,  July  26,  28,  2g;   Tribune,  July  29;  confirmation  of  this  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  War  Department,  printed  in  the 
Tribune,  Aug.  5;  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Adjutant  General  of  the 
State  of  New  York  1865,  i,  p.  202  states  that  only  two  regiments  of 
the  National  Guard  were  mustered  at  -this  time  into  the  service  of  the 
United  States  for  the  term  of  one  hundred  days,  for  duty  in  the  field ; 
they  numbered  in  all  994. 

3  E.   g.   New   York   News  of   August   I2th,   quoted   by  the   Tribune, 
Aug.  13. 

4  Letter  of  Seymour  to  Stanton,  printed  in  the  Herald,  Aug.  7 ;  letter 
of  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  to  Stanton,  printed  in  the  Tribune, 
Aug.  19. 

5  Letter  of  Seymour  to  Stanton,  Herald,  Aug.  7. 


NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [614 

demands  made  upon  it  were  consequently  disproportionate.1 
These  gentlemen  were  both  radical  Unionists.  The  New 
York  County  Union  Central  Committee,  composed  of  Sew- 
ard  adherents,  sent  a  delegation  to  Washington  to  en 
deavor  to  have  New  York  credited  with  the  men  enlisted 
as  sailors  and  marines.2  The  folly  of  the  Democrats  in 
denouncing  the  three-hundred-dollar  exemption  clause  now 
began  to  be  felt.  That  provision  had  been  repealed,  and 
hence  the  price  of  substitutes  rose  enormously.3  The  war 
department  rejected  the  proposal  to  appoint  a  commis 
sion  to  adjust  quotas,  similar  to  that  granted  in  the  pre 
vious  year,  on  the  ground  that  the  law  did  not  permit 
such  an  act.4  Yet,  in  the  end,  New  York  City  and  Brook 
lyn  wholly  escaped  this  draft.  Supervisor  Blunt  with  great 
labor  compiled  a  list  of  the  naval  enlistments  from  New 
York  since  1861,  numbering  25,908,  for  which  no  allow 
ance  had  been  made.  The  government  allowed  this 
claim.  New  York  City  was  credited  with  about  18,000 
men,  Brooklyn  with  about  6,000,  and  the  rest  of  the  State 
with  the  remainder.  Thus  New  York  City's  quota  was 
filled.5  Possibly  the  administration  accepted  this  way  out 
of  a  situation  which  involved  important  political  difficulties.6 
We  have  seen  that  the  New  York  delegation  to  the 

1  Letter  of  Blunt  to  Fry,  printed  in  the  Herald,  Aug.  10;  remarks  of 
Opdyke  at  a  Chamber  of  Commerce  meeting,  Herald,  Sept.  2. 

2  Tribune,  Aug.  25. 

3  Herald,  Aug.  22. 

4  Letter   of    Seymour   to    Stanton,    printed   in    the   Herald,   Aug.    7; 
Stanton's  reply,  printed  in  the  Tribune,  Aug.  15. 

5  Herald,   Sept.   5,   10 ;   letter  of   Blunt  to   Seymour  and  Townsend, 
printed  in  the  Herald,  Sept.  i. 

6  Under  date  of  August  nth,  Seward  wrote  to  his  wife:  "Very  many 
loyal  men  counsel  us  to  yield  the  draft,  through  fear  of  civil  war  at 
the  North."— F.  W.  Seward's  Seward  at  Washington,  iii,  p.  239. 


615]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  415 

Democratic  National  Convention  of  1864  was  noteworthy 
in  that  Tammany  Hall  was  without  representation  in  it. 
At  the  ensuing  state  convention,  which  met  at  Albany  on 
September  I4th,  the  Wigwam  leaders  resumed  their  seats 
in  the  councils  of  the  Democracy.  The  advantages  to  the 
Regency  from  a  divide  et  impera  policy  were  self-evident; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  though  the  charges  made  against  the 
Tammany  managers  of  being  place  barterers  and  of  form 
ing  a  close  corporation  were  not  without  truth,  yet  it  was 
manifest  that  mushroom  rival  organizations  were  increas 
ing  so  rapidly  among  the  Democrats  of  the  metropolis  that 
the  party  was  being  seriously  weakened.  Accordingly, 
there  being  no  less  than  six  sets  of  contestants  from  New 
York  City,  the  committee  on  credentials  reported  a  reso 
lution  acknowledging  Tammany  Hall  as  the  regular  Demo 
cratic  organization  and  the  Tammany  delegates  as  the  regu 
larly  elected  ones,  awarding  them  nine  votes — more  than 
half  of  those  cast  by  New  York  County — and  admitting  the 
other  delegations  with  one  or  two  votes  apiece.  This  con 
cession  was  not  satisfactory  to  Tammany's  opponents ;  con 
sequently  the  McKeon,  the  old  Mozart,  the  new  Mozart,  and 
one  of  the  German  delegations  withdrew  when  the  resolu 
tion  of  the  committee  was  adopted.  Thus,  the  field  was 
left  practically  to  Tammany.1 

Not  only  was  Fernando  Wood  powerless,  but  his  entrance 
upon  the  convention  floor  was  greeted  with  hisses.2  Never 
theless,  the  applause  which  the  speech  of  the  temporary 
chairman,  Marshall  B.  Champlain,  met  with  showed  to 
what  an  extent  the  New  York  Democracy  had  pro 
gressed  toward  Wood's  ideas.3  After  the  settlement  of  the 

1  Herald,  Sept.  16;  Argus,  Sept.  16. 

2  Herald,  Sept.  15. 

3  Champlain  said  in  part :  "  There  is  a  deep  conviction  pervading  the 


416       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [616 

New  York  City  contest,  the  convention  proceeded  peace 
ably.  The  report  of  the  committee  on  electors,  naming 
William  Kelly  of  Dutchess  and  Washington  Hunt  of 
Niagara  for  electors  at  large,  was  accepted  without  dissent.1 
The  adoption  by  acclamation  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
on  resolutions  followed.  The  platform  was  equivocal  in 
character.  After  endorsing  McClellan  and  Pendleton,  it  de 
clared,  in  an  attempt  to  harmonize  opposite  ideas,  that  "  the 
patriotic  principles  declared  by  the  National  Democratic 
Convention,  as  nobly  and  eloquently  expounded  by  its  can 
didate  for  the  Presidency,  in  his  recent  letter  of  acceptance, 
embody  a  line  of  policy  upon  which  alone  the  American 
people  can  restore  the  Union."  Again,  the  platform  faced 
both  ways  when  in  the  same  resolution  it  approved  Mc- 
Clellan's  pledge  that  he  would,  if  elected,  "  exhaust  all  the 
resources  of  statesmanship  to  secure  peace,  reestablish  the 
Union,  and  guarantee  for  the  future  the  rights  of  every 
State,"  and  coupled  this  endorsement  with  the  Jacksonian 
declaration  that  "  the  Union  must  be  maintained  at  all 
hazards."  Other  resolutions  affirmed  that  the  Democratic 
party  of  New  York  State  was  "  unalterably  opposed  to  the 
rebellion,"  denounced  at  length  the  administration  of  Abra- 

hearts  of  the  people  that  the  administration  in  power  is  incapable  of 
restoring  the  Union  or  saving  the  country.  A  great  and  confiding 
people  have  poured  out  their  blood  like  water  and  given  their  treasure 
without  stint.  .  .  .  Yet,  for  the  want  of  wisdom  and  ability  to  turn 
these  achievements  [of  the  army  and  navy]  to  the  pacification  of  the 
country,  they  are  lost.  .  .  .  We  must  cooperate,  then,  with  the  great 
conservative  party  of  the  nation  to  sweep  away  the  barrier  and  throw 
the  doors  wide  open  for  the  States  at  the  South  to  return  to  their 
allegiance  to  the  Union,  with  all  their  rights  under  the  constitution, 
as  the  first  step  towards  peace  and  concord."  True,  the  speaker  in 
sisted  upon  the  preservation  of  the  Union — but  not  by  war,  if  it  could 
not  be  saved  otherwise  (Herald,  Sept.  15;  Argus,  Sept.  15). 
1  Herald,  Aug.  16;  Argus,  Sept.  16. 


617]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  417 

ham  Lincoln,  and  thanked  the  soldiers  and  sailors.  Lastly, 
it  was  resolved  that  to  Governor  Seymour 

the  gratitude  of  the  democracy  is  ever  due.  They  can  never 
forget  that  it  was  he  who,  in  the  midst  of  our  disasters  and  in 
the  face  of  an  overbearing  adversary,  was  foremost  in  uplift 
ing  the  banner  of  constitutional  liberty,  which  he  has  since 
borne  unsullied  through  every  battle.  That  it  was  he  who 
by  his  wisdom  arrested  public  discord,  by  his  firmness  re 
pelled  aggressions  upon  State  rights  and  personal  liberty,  and 
by  the  purity  of  his  public  life  and  the  elevation  of  his  pur 
poses,  exhibited,  in  the  midst  of  general  corruption  and  fac 
tiousness,  the  highest  qualities  of  a  statesman  and  a  patriot.1 

The  last  resolution  was  hailed  with  enthusiasm.  It  was 
then  that  the  surprise  of  the  occasion  occurred.  Before 
the  convention  met,  it  had  been  announced  by  the  Gov 
ernor's  friends  that  he  would  not  accept  a  renomination.2 
While  there  was  no  doubt  that  the  majority  of  the  dele 
gates  would  have  favored  Seymour  being  named  again  but 
for  his  positive  stand  against  such  action,3  the  result  was 
that  those  most  frequently  mentioned  for  the  head  of  the 
ticket  by  the  gathering  politicians  were  Judge  William  F. 
Allen,  Judge  Amasa  J.  Parker,  and  William  Kelly  of 
Dutchess.4  The  resolution  quoted  above,  however,*  up 
set  the  previous  calculations.  A  delegate  moved  that  Hora 
tio  Seymour  be  nominated  for  governor  by  acclamation. 
This  proposal  took  the  convention  by  storm,  the  motion 
being  carried  with  cheers.  Another  delegate  thereupon  an 
nounced  that  he  was  authorized  to  say  that  Governor  Sey- 

1  Herald,  Sept.  16.  2  Argus,  Sept.  15. 

3  Tribune,  Sept.  14;  Herald,  Sept.  17;  Argus,  Sept.  15,  said  that  a 
number  of  delegates  had  been  instructed  to  support  Seymour  for 
renomination. 

*  Herald,  Sept.  14. 


4i8       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [618 

mour  positively  declined  a  renomination  and  begged  leave 
to  withdraw  his  name.  The  cries  of  the  convention  mem 
bers  showed  that  they  would  not  hear  of  this.  Mr.  South- 
worth  of  Oneida — Seymour's  county — then  said  that  in 
company  with  the  other  Oneida  delegates,  he  had  called 
upon  the  Governor  within  the  preceding  hour,  and  that 
Seymour  absolutely  refused  to  run  again.  The  Seymour 
enthusiasm,  however,  was  not  to  be  stemmed.  A  motion 
that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  wait  upon  the  Governor 
and  notify  him  of  his  nomination  was  carried. 

This  committee  in  due  time  reported  that  Seymour 
thought  that  in  view  of  his  impaired  health  and  the  demands 
of  his  private  business,  the  party  ought  not  to  press  a  nomi 
nation  upon  him,  and  that  therefore  he  asked  the  convention 
to  designate  some  one  else;  but  if  the  convention  insisted 
upon  his  being  the  candidate,  he  "  did  not  feel  at  liberty  at 
this  hour  of  our  country'.-  peril  "  to  forbid  the  use  of  his 
name.  These  last  words  settled  the  matter,  and  Seymour 
was  declared  the  nominee.1  The  remaining  nominations,  in 
cluding  that  of  David  G.  Floyd  Jones  for  lieutenant-gover 
nor,  were  then  made  by  acclamation.2  Those  who  disliked 
Seymour  declared  that  the  whole  affair  was  a  prearranged 
trick,  a  nomination  ostensibly  merely  complimentary  but  se 
cretly  intended  to  be  accepted.3  It  may  have  been  a  strata 
gem  on  the  part  of  a  few  delegates,4  but  there  is  no  evidence 

1  Herald,  Sept.  16;  Argus,  Sept.  16.    The  Argus  report  differs  as  to 
the  reply  of   Seymour.     The  Argus  gives  it  thus :  "  But,   added   Mr. 
Farnwell,  he  [Seymour]  did  not  say  he  would  not  run." 

2  Herald,  Sept.  16;  Argus,  Sept.  16. 

3  Herald,  Sept.  16.     An  editorial  in  the  same  paper  of  September  i7th 
said:  "He   [Seymour]    tried  to  get  the  nomination  at  Chicago  by  the 
same  tricky  means  he  has  secured  it  at  Albany."     See  also   Tribune 
editorial,  Sept.  19.  » 

4  Even  before  the  nomination,  the  Herald  of  September  I4th  contained 
in  a  dispatch  dated  the   I3th  the   following:  "There  is  some  talk  of 


619]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY 

or  likelihood  that  it  was  artfully  planned  by  the  Regency  or 
by  the  Governor.1  However,  as  a  correspondent  well  said, 
"  Seymour's  worst  failing  is  that  he  never  says  directly  yes 
or  no." 

The  campaign  in  New  York  opened  with  the  usual  rati 
fication  meetings  directly  after  the  nominations  of  Lincoln 
and  Fremont.2  The  alarming  apathy  in  the  Union  ranks 
during  July  and  August  was  shown  by  the  absence  of  de 
monstrations  of  size.  Near  the  end  of  the  latter  month, 
Raymond  wrote  from  New  York  to  Lincoln :  "  This  State, 
according  to  the  best  information  I  can  get,  would  go 
50,000  against  us  to-morrow ;"  8  and  at  the  same  time  Weed 
in  a  letter  to  Seward  pronounced  Lincoln's  election  an  im 
possibility,  declaring  that  no  one  in  New  York  doubted  the 
result.4  Raymond  was  so  despondent  that  he  was  ready 
to  steal  the  Democratic  fire — to  send  commissioners  to 
Richmond  to  treat  for  peace  on  the  basis  of  the  Union. 
Congressman  Sedgwick,  writing  from  Syracuse,  despaired 

giving  Governor  Seymour  a  complimentary  vote  by  nominating  him 
with  the  understanding  that  he  will  decline  in  a  speech  to  the  Con 
vention.  Some  opposition  is  manifested  to  this  plan  under  the  idea 
that  the  move  is  only  a  trick  to  place  Seymour  in  the  field  again; 
but  this  is  met  by  those  who  pretend  to  speak  the  Governor's  views 
with  the  positive  declaration  that  Governor  Seymour  will  not  accept 
.  .  .  upon  any  contingency." 

1  The  Herald  special  correspondent  attributed  the  nomination  to  the 
machinations  of  John  A.   Green.    "  Richmond  acknowledges   the   de 
feat  and  declared  to  Green  that  it  was  '  damned  well  done.' " 

2  Herald,  June  10,  14,  16,  28;  Tribune,  July  6. 

3  Nioolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  218. 

4  Ibid.,  ix,  p.  251.    At  the  same  time,  J.  M.  Forbes  in  a  letter  to  Gus- 
tavus  V.  Fox  reported  Weed  as  desperate  and   Raymond  as  giving 
intimations  which  showed  that  he  was  ready  to  make  peace  (Hughes' 
Letters  and  Recollections  of  John  Murray  Forbes,  ii,  p.  102).     Swett 
wrote  to  his  wife,   September  8th,   about  the  alarming  depression  in 
New  York  (Tarbell's  Lincoln,  ii,  p.  202). 


420       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [620 

of  Lincoln's  reelection.1  \s  is  well  known,  prominent  radi 
cals  at  a  meeting  in  New  York  City  began  operations  to 
bring  about  Lincoln's  withdrawal  and  another  nomination, 
continuing  these  efforts  from  mid-August  to  the  latter  part 
of  September.  Greeley,  Godwin,  David  Dudley  Field, 
Tilton,  Opdyke,  and  Noyes  were  among  the  New  Yorkers 
who  took  part  in  this  movement.  A  call  for  a  convention  to 
meet  at  Cincinnati  was  privately  circulated ;  letters  of  inquiry 
were  written  to  Unionists  of  other  states;  and  Greeley  for 
the  Tribune,  Parke  Godwin  for  the  Post,  and  Tilton  for  the 
Independent  sent  a  similar  missive  to  the  governors  of 
loyal  states.  While  these  steps  were  aided  by  the  sym 
pathy  and  in  some  cases  by  the  participation  of  prominent 
men  outside  of  New  York,  yet  the  attempts  to  feel  the  party 
pulse  failed  to  show  that  another  nomination  for  the  presi 
dency  would  meet  with  proper  support.2 

After  the  Chicago  convention,  the  political  situation  in 
New  York  was  stirred  up;  and  from  September  on,  very 
large  meetings  with  abundant  enthusiasm  on  both  sides  were 
reported  from  all  over  the  State.  McClellan's  nomination 
was  received  with  joy  by  the  great  majority  of  New  York 
Democrats.  In  New  York  City  a  large  ratification  meet 
ing  under  Tammany's  auspices  was  held  in  City  Hall  Park 
immediately  upon  the  arrival  of  reliable  news  of  the  action 
of  the  convention;3  Tammany  Hall  was  brilliantly  illumin 
ated  and  decorated ;  while  along  the  East  and  North  Rivers, 
bonfires  around  which  crowds  gathered  were  lighted.4  In 

1  Hughes'  Letters  and  Recollections  of  John  Murray  Forbes,  ii,  p. 
101. 

2  New  York  Sun,  June  30,  1889;  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln, 
ix,    p.    366;    letter   of    Swett,   Tarbell's   Lincoln,   ii,    p.    202;    Pearson's 
Andrew,  ii,  pp.  159,  160;  Linn's  Greeley,  p.  202. 

3  Herald,  Sept.  i.  4  Ibid. 


62 1  ]      THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY      421 

Albany  two  salutes  of  two  hundred  guns  each  were  fired, 
a  procession  formed,  fireworks  set  off,  and  a  meeting  held 
on  the  steps  of  the  Capitol.  Similar  demonstrations  took 
place  at  Utica,  Syracuse,  Rochester,  Ogdensburg,  Buffalo, 
Poughkeepsie,  Kingston,  Lockport,  Troy,  and  many  smaller 
places  in  the  State.1  All  this  had  a  reactive  effect  upon  Mc- 
Clellan's  opponents.  The  Chicago  resolutions  especially 
braced  up  the  Unionists.  Fremont  withdrew,  and  soon 
both  the  radicals  and  their  journals  heartily  supported 
Lincoln.  Thereafter,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  vicious 
attack  upon  Lincoln  delivered  by  Wendell  Phillips  before 
a  great  Cooper  Institute  audience  a  week  before  the  elec 
tion,2  there  were  no  discordant  voices  in  the  Union  ranks 
in  New  York  State. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  large  number  of  Democrats  felt 
that  the  peace  plank  adopted  at  Chicago  was  a  great  handi 
cap.  The  Herald  day  after  day  in  leading  editorials  urged 
McClellan  to  rebuke  the  "  disloyal  platform."  3  Hence  the 
General's  letter  of  acceptance  *  was  received  with  much  satis 
faction  by  the  major  portion  of  the  party  in  this  State. 
The  World  thus  expressed  their  sentiments: 

Thank  God  for  a  purified,  regenerated,  disenthralled,  Demo 
cratic  party!  Thank  God  that  every  burden  is  lifted  from  its 
back,  every  impediment  from  its  victorious  path !  The  men 
who  have  been  the  curse  of  the  party  have  gone  out  of  the 
party.  Close  up  the  ranks !  .  .  .  Now  we  go  into  the  Novem 
ber  fight  without  a  flaw  in  our  armor.  .  .  .  5 

1  Herald,  Sept.  i ;  Argus,  Sept.  2. 

2  Herald,  Oct.  27. 

3  E.  g.  Sept.  3,  4. 

4  For  McClellan's  letter,  see  the  Annual  Cyclopaedia  for  1864,  P-  794- 

5  New  York  World,  Sept.  12. 


422       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [622 

The  letter,  however,  also  provoked  a  troublesome  minority. 
The  Daily  News  said : 

The  States  Rights  doctrine  that  demands  every  true  and  faith 
ful  Democrat  raise  his  voice  against  a  war  for  the  subjugation 
of  sovereign  States,  is  recognized  practically  in  the  enuncia 
tion  of  principles  laid  down  by  the  Chicago  Convention ;  but  is, 
on  the  other  hand,  directly  repudiated  in  General  McClellan's 
avowal  of  his  determination,  if  elected,  to  compel  the  sov 
ereignties  of  the  South  to  submit  to  his  will  by  force  of  arms. 
The  man  nominated  to  represent  its  principles  is  therefore  no 
longer  the  nominee  of  the  Chicago  Convention.  ...  he  has 
therefore  no  claim  on  the  support  of  the  Democracy  as  such. 
General  McClellan's  voice  is  for  war.  Principle,  feeling,  con 
sistency,  every  suggestion  of  patriotism,  statesmanship,  and 
self-respect  forbid  us,  therefore,  from  giving  him  our  support.1 

The  News  further  declared  that  the  Democrats  "  must  seek 
a  candidate  who  will  stand  upon  their  platform;"  and  to 
that  end,  it  suggested  that  the  Chicago  convention  be  called 
together  again.2  About  the  same  time  a  conference  of 
peace  men  was  held  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  in  New  York 
City.  A  resolution  to  hold  a  convention  at  Cincinnati  was 
passed ; 3  but  upon  unfavorable  indications  as  to  support 
from  Ohio,  the  resolution  was  rescinded.4  Ben  Wood 
maintained  his  hostility  to  McClellan.  Smaller  peace  pap 
ers  yielded.  The  size  of  the  Democratic  vote  in  New  York 
State  shows  that  the  threatened  split  in  the  Democratic 
ranks — if  indeed,  the  Wood  followers  were  strong  enough 
to  bring  about  such  a  condition — did  not  occur.  The  vari- 

1  New  York  News,  quoted  by  the  Tribune,  Sept.  13. 

2  New  York  News,  quoted  by  the  Herald,  Sept.  n. 

3  Herald,  Sept  15;  Tribune,  Sept.  15;  letter  of  Alexander  Long  of 
Ohio,  printed  in  the  Tribune,  Oct.  10. 

4  Letter  of  Long,  Tribune,  Oct.  10. 


623]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  423 

ous  factions  in  New  York  City,  however  they  differed  in 
local  nominations,  united  in  hearty  support  of  the  presiden 
tial  and  state  tickets.1 

Most  potent,  here  as  elsewhere,  in  changing  the  tide 
in  favor  of  the  Unionists  were  the  successes  of  the  army 
and  navy  during  the  autumn.  Even  Governor  Seymour 
was  roused  by  the  occupation  of  Atlanta  and  by  Farragut's 
achievement  at  Mobile  to  order  flags  to  be  displayed  from 
all  public  buildings  and  one  hundred  guns  to  be  fired ;  * 
while  the  New  York  City  Common  Council,  both  branches 
of  which  were  Democratic,  took  similar  action.3  Both 
Unionists  and  Democrats  rejoiced  from  patriotic  motives. 
But  Unionists  might  well  be  doubly  jubilant,  as  the  effect  of 
the  victories  on  the  prospects  of  the  Chicago  ticket  was  at 
once  realized.  Then  came  the  October  elections  with  re 
sults  most  encouraging  for  Lincoln. 

Fire  upon  the  Democrats  was  opened  from  another 
quarter,  the  War  Democrats.  At  the  end  of  October,  there 
was  issued  a  call  for  a  convention  and  mass-meeting  of  the 
Democracy  opposed  to  the  Chicago  platform,  to  meet  at 
Cooper  Institute  on  November  ist.  This  document  was 
honored  with  such  signers  as  John  A.  Dix,  Edwards 
Pierrepont,  A.  T.  Stewart,  Peter  Cooper,  Robert  B.  Roose 
velt,  and  Moses  Taylor;  it  was  also  signed  by  committees  in 
behalf  of  the  State  Committee  of  the  War  Democracy  of 

1  Thus  the  great  McClellan  demonstration  of  September  iyth  was 
held  under  the  auspices  of  a  committee  in  which  were  represented 
the  Constitutional  Union  General  Committee,  the  Mozart  Hall  Gen 
eral  Committee  (Fairchild,  chairman),  the  other  Mozart  Hall  General 
Committee  (Ray,  chairman),  the  New  York  Democratic  Committee 
(the  McKeon  organization),  the  McClellan  Union  Executive  Com 
mittee,  the  Democratic  Union  Association,  two  German  Democratic 
committees,  and  the  Tammany  Hall  General  Committee  (advertise 
ment  in  the  Herald,  Sept.  n).  See  also  Herald,  Oct.  29. 

z  Tribune,  Sept.  7;  Argus,  Sept.  7.  3  Tribune,  Oct.  I. 


424       NEIV  yORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [624 

New  York  State  and  the  War  Democratic  General  Com 
mittee  of  the  City  of  New  York,  and  by  a  number  of  gen 
tlemen  from  other  states.1  This  convention  and  mass-meet 
ing  were  duly  held,  the  latter  crowding  Cooper  Institute  to 
excess  and  calling  forth  great  enthusiasm.2  A  few  days 
later,  a  similar  demonstration  by  War  Democrats  was  held 
in  Brooklyn.3 

There  was  very  little  mention  of  Wide  Awake  clubs  in 
New  York  State  during  the  campaign  of  1864.  Instead, 
there  were  War  Eagles,  Lincoln  and  Johnson  Associations, 
and  Union  Associations.4  Immediately  preceding  the  elec 
tion,  a  large  Democratic  torchlight  procession  in  New  York 
City  was  reviewed  by  General  McClellan  from  the  Fifth 
Avenue  Hotel;  but  he  made  no  speech.5  Earlier,  Pendle- 
ton  was  serenaded  and  addressed  the  gathering.6  Neither 
of  the  Union  candidates  spoke  in  New  York  State.  How 
ever,  as  might  have  been  expected  from  the  imposing  lists  of 
speakers  in  this  State  during  the  preceding  off  years,  very 
many  distinguished  men  addressed  New  York  Union  cam 
paign  meetings  in  1864,  not  only  in  the  cities  but  also  in  the 
towns  and  large  villages.  On  the  whole,  the  Democratic 
array  was  far  less  notable.  Governor  Seymour  especially 
bore  a  great  part  of  the  burden,  speaking  almost  daily 
from  the  middle  of  October  down  to  the  election  and  from 
one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other.7 

1  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Nov.  i. 

2  Herald,  Nov.  2.  3  Herald,  Nov.  6. 

4  Under  date  of  September  22nd,  the  Tribune  has  the  first  mention  of 
a   Wide   Awake   club   during   the   campaign.     See   on   this   point,   ad 
vertisement  in  the  Tribune  of  Nov.  2;  account  of  Brooklyn  torchlight 
parade  in  Tribune,  Nov.  I ;  Herald,  Nov.  5. 

5  Herald,  Nov.  6 ;  Tribune,  Nov.  7. 

6  Herald,  Oct.  25 ;  Tribune,  Oct.  25. 

7  See  lists  of  speakers  in  the  Argus  during  October;  also  editorial, 
Nov.  21. 


625]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  425 

In  New  York  State,  the  canvass  of  1864  was  largely  a 
continuation  and  a  culmination  of  the  three  previous  con 
tests.  The  Democrats  again  claimed  to  be  the  upholders 
of  the  constitution ;  they  still  talked  of  the  perversion  of  the 
war  by  their  opponents;  they  again  assailed  the  arbitrary 
actions  and  usurpations  of  the  government,  the  corrup 
tion  and  extravagance  at  Washington,  the  fatuity  of  con 
fiscation,  forcible  emancipation,  and  a  war  of  subjugation. 
Increased  attention  was  now  given  to  the  national  debt  and 
to  the  depreciated  paper  money,  and  the  calamities  impend 
ing  therefrom  were  vividly  described.1  A  special  appeal  was 
made  to  the  taxpayer.  "  Half  a  Million  Dollars  a  Week ! 
Something  for  Tax  Payers  to  Consider!"  was  the  heading 
of  an  Argus  editorial  in  which  was  estimated  the  cost  of 
the  support  of  "  pauperized  negroes  by  the  administration."  2 
The  increased  price  of  commodities  was  thus  set  forth  by 
the  same  journal : 

The  laboring  classes  were  promised  great  blessings  under  the 
reign  of  Lincoln.    The  result  is  a  cheerful  one.    They  can  buy 
Common  sheeting  at  75  cts.  a  yd.    Calico,  45  cents. 
Sugar,  33  cents.  Molasses,  $1.25. 

Tea,  $2.  Coffee,  70  cents. 

Butter,  55  to  60  cents.  Potatoes,  $2  a  bush. 

Pork,  25  cents  per  Ib.  Boots,  $7.50  a  pair. 

Pepper  and  spices,  $i  per  Ib.  Thread,  200.  a  spool,  and 

almost  every  other  article  in  the  same  ratio.  If  he  [Lincoln] 
is  reelected,  we  suppose  they  will  be  double  the  above  prices. 
Let  every  poor  man  hurrah  for  Lincoln ! 3 

1  Unionists  answered  this  by  declaring  that  the  Democrats  exagger 
ated  and  by  pointing  to  the  enormous  resources  of  the  North. 

2  Argus,  Sept.  21. 

3  Argus,   Sept.  23;   similar  editorial  paragraph  on   "Lincoln  prices," 
Argus,  Nov.  8. 


426       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [626 

An  Argus  article  was  entitled:  "Albany  County  Debt! 
Taxes !  Taxes !  Taxes !  More  than  half  the  value  of  the 
county  and  city  absorbed.  Can  we  afford  to  prosecute  an 
'  Abolition  War !'  "  x  Democrats  also  made  use  of  the  im 
pending  draft.  Future  calls  were  predicted,  along  with 
further  debt  and  taxation  necessitated  by  such  demands.2 
The  administration  had  promised  since  the  beginning  of  the 
war,  said  the  Argus,  that  each  call  for  troops  would  be  the 
last;  in  order  to  keep  the  Federal  forces  in  the  field  up  to 
their  strength  at  the  time,  800,000  men  would  have  to  be 
furnished  during  the  next  year;  and  the  conclusion  was 
drawn  that  more  conscriptions  would  come.  "  A  vote  for 
Lincoln  is  a  vote  for  more  drafts."  3 

The  Unionists,  on  the  other  hand,  once  more  appealed  to 
the  loyalty  of  the  people ;  they  again  claimed  a  non-partisan 
character;  the  leaders  of  their  adversaries  were  repeatedly 
denounced  as  traitors  or  as  having  disloyal  leanings. 
Voters  were  impressed  with  the  danger  of  changing  the 
government  at  such  a  time.  They  were  exhorted  not  to 
reestablish  the  rebels  in  power.  They  were  urged  to  see 
that  there  was  no  firing  upon  the  rear  of  the  army.  The 
Democracy  at  Chicago  was  coupled  with  the  Democracy 
at  Richmond.  It  was  declared  that  McClellan's  nomin 
ation  was  hailed  with  cheers  by  the  rebel  armies  and  had 
caused  an  advance  of  the  rebel  loan;  that  his  nomination 
was  received  with  approval  by  rebel  newspapers  and  by  the 
hostile  foreign  press;  that  the  result  of  the  election  would 
influence  the  attitude  of  England  and  of  France  toward  this 
country;  that  Democratic  success  was  the  only  hope  of  the 

1  Argus,  Nov.  8.     Similar  editorials'  or  editorial  articles  in  the  same 
paper,  Oct.  5,  6,  7,  Nov.  3,  5. 

2  Argus,  Sept.  30,  Nov.  8. 

3  Argus,  Oct.  25. 


627]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  427 

rebels  and  rebel  victories  the  only  hope  of  the  Democratic 
party;  and  that  McClellan,  if  elected,  would  be  a  tool  in 
the  hands  of  traitorous  leaders  like  the  Woods  and  Val- 
landigham. 

Seymour's  administration  of  the  state  government  was 
again  an  issue,1  though  not  as  prominent  as  the  year  be 
fore.  Fenton,  on  the  other  hand,  was  assailed  because  of 
his  abolition  record  and  for  voting  against  the  compromise 
amendments  to  the  constitution  in  i86i.2  Slavery  and  free 
labor  were,  of  course,  discussed;  but  some  Unionist  speak 
ers  evidently  avoided  that  topic,  for  Theodore  Tilton  ex 
pressed  his  regret  that  so  many  voices  speaking  for  the 
Union  cause  were  silent  on  the  question  of  slavery.3  There 
were  many,  however,  like  Schurz,  Greeley,  Bryant,  Field, 
Beecher,  Sumner,  and  Andrew,  who  addressed  New  York 
audiences  and  who  were  not  afraid  of  the  subject.  The 
Arguelles  case,4  Lincoln's  ten  per  cent  plan  of  reconstruc 
tion,  his  employment  of  negro  troops,  and  especially  his 
"  To  whom  it  may  concern  "  letter,  laying  down  the  aboli 
tion  of  slavery  together  with  the  restoration  of  the  Union 
as  conditions  of  peace,5  were  new  points  of  attack  by  the 

!£.  g.  speech  by  Eliott  F.  Shepard  (Tribune,  Oct.  10)  ;  by  Tremain 
(Tribune,  Oct.  21);  by  Busteed  (Tribune,  Oct.  27);  Albany  Evening 
Journal  editorial,  Sept.  9.  Defense  of  Seymour,  Argus,  Nov.  5. 

2  Argus,  Sept.  20,  22,  Oct.  n,  13. 

3  Tribune,  Oct.  12. 

4  For  details  oi  this  incident,  see  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lin 
coln,  ix,  p.  44  et  seq. 

5  The  Argus  reprinted  the  letter  under  the  heading,  "  Lincoln's  Plat 
form."    Weed    felt    that    this    argument    was    a    telling    one    against 
Lincoln  (Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  251).     So  too  did 
Raymond,  ibid.,  ix,  p.  218.    The  Albany  Evening  Journal  devoted  many 
editorials  to  showing  that  the  abolition  of  slavery  was  not  a  condition 
of  peace.     Seward  answered  the  Democrats  by  inquiring,  "  When  and 
where  have  the  insurgents  offered  him   [Lincoln]   peace  on  the  basis 


428       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [628 

Democrats.  Again,  McClellan's  record  and  the  adminis 
tration's  treatment  of  him  had  been  an  issue  in  the  state 
election  of  1862;  more  attention  was  now  given  to  this 
topic.  "  Two  years  of  war,"  said  Henry  Ward  Beecher, 
"  and  we  have  conquered  half  the  rebel  territory,  hold  the 
keys  of  the  whole,  and  have  nearly  destroyed  the  military 
strength  of  the  Rebellion  in  the  field.  All  this  in  two  years 
of  war."  "  Four  years  you  mean,"  said  a  bystander. 
"  No,"  responded  Mr.  Beecher,  "  I  said  two  years  of  war. 
In  the  first  two,  General  McClellan  was  in  command."  * 
At  a  Cooper  Institute  mass-meeting  of  Unionists,  a  promi 
nent  feature  was  a  large  log,  labeled  "  McClellan  orator 
— recently  from  Manassas  Junction, — of  the  Quaker  or 
der."  2  Because  of  McClellan's  letter  of  acceptance,  Union 
ists  attacked  him  as  trying  to  stand  upon  both  a  war  and  a 
peace  platform.  Pendleton's  congressional  record  was 
warmly  assailed.  On  the  other  hand,  Democratic  orators 
found  a  favorite  theme  in  contrasting  McClellan's  achieve 
ments  with  those  of  his  successors  to  the  disadvantage  of 
the  latter. 

Of  course,  the  Chicago  platform  was  the  chief  issue  of 
the  campaign.  The  Democrats  claimed  that  they  and  they 
alone  could  reestablish  peace  and  the  Union.  The  people 
"  were  deeply  concerned,"  said  Seymour, 

to  find  that  after  three  years  of  bloody  struggle  so  little  prog 
ress  had  been  made  in  restoring  peace.  ...  It  is  not  only  our 
right  but  our  duty  to  inquire  why  it  is,  after  we  have  expended 

of  the  integrity  of  the  Union?"  (Herald,  Sept.  7).  Greeley  asked, 
"  Has  any  man  ever  heard  an  authentic  declaration  from  the  Rebel 
government  or  anybody  representing  it,  that  they  would  sooner  submit 
if  Slavery  were  restored  than  if  it  were  not?"  (Tribune,  Sept.  13). 

1  Tribune,  Oct.  25. 

z  Herald,  Sept.  28;  Tribune,  Sept.  28. 


629]      THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY      429 

more  than  $2,000,000,000,  after  we  have  given  to  this  adminis 
tration  more  than  2,000,000  men,  that  so  far  from  the  country 
being  restored  to  its  former  condition,  we  are  told  that  re 
bellious  discontent  has  travelled  northward,  .  .  .  Why  is  it 
that  there  has  been  an  utter  failure  in  bringing  this  war  to 
a  successful  end?  It  must  be  the  fault  of  government  or 
fault  of  those  who  have  borne  arms  in  support  of  our  flag; 
.  .  .  Now  who  will  dare  to  say  that  is  due  to  the  brave  men 
who  have  battled  so  fearlessly?  .  .  .  They  have  done  enough 
if  their  efforts  had  been  followed  by  a  wise  statesmanship  to 
restore  peace  to  this  land.  One  year  ago,  after  Gettysburg  and 
Vicksburg,  when  we  had  sealed  Charleston  and  Mobile,  and 
held  New  Orleans,  had  there  been  wisdom  enough  at  Wash 
ington  to  avail  themselves  of  the  advantage  gained  by  brave 
men  in  the  battle-field,  to-day  we  should  have  been  living  in 
peace  under  a  restored  Union.  ...  I  charge  then,  here,  that 
the  disgraceful  failure  ...  is  due  and  due  alone  to  the  ad 
ministration  ;  .  .  .  * 

On  the  other  hand,  the  peace  plank  furnished  the  Union 
ists  with  ammunition  which  they  used  vigorously  and  ef 
fectively.  They  pointed  out  the  progress  in  subduing  the 
rebellion  which  had  already  been  made;  they  emphasized 
the  suicidal  impolicy  of  the  program  proposed  by  their 
opponents;  they  asserted  that  the  adoption  of  such  a  plan 
would  mean  a  return  to  the  imbecile  truce  of  Buchanan's  ad 
ministration ;  they  insisted  that  an  armistice  could  lead  only 
to  the  recognition  of  the  Confederacy's  independence;  and 

1  Tribune,  Sept.  9.  The  Argus  presented  the  great  issue  of  the  cam 
paign  as  peace  or  war  (Argus,  Sept.  13,  Nov.  8).  At  the  same  time,  it 
insisted  that  the  Democrats  would  not  consent  to  disunion  (Argus, 
Sept.  12).  Still  later,  when  the  tide  was  evidently  turning  against  the 
Democrats,  the  Argus  found  it  advisable  to  repudiate  Vallandigham 
(Argus,  Oct.  19).  But,  as  before,  nothing  was  said  of  what  the 
Democrats  would  do  if  the  South  refused  the  overtures  for  peace 
accompanied  by  a  restoration  of  the  Union. 


430       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [630 

they  asked,  were  all  the  treasure  and  all  the  blood  already 
spent  to  go  for  naught.  What  would  be  the  fate  of  the 
Southern  loyalists  and  of  the  enlisted  negroes,  should  the 
Democracy  accomplish  the  ends  it  sought?  As  in  the  pre 
vious  years,  a  strong  argument  advanced  by  Unionist  speak 
ers  was  the  question  whether  the  Confederates,  in  view  of 
their  repeated  declarations  to  the  contrary,  would  accept 
peace  with  a  restoration  of  the  Union ;  and  it  was  again  de 
clared  that  the  war  could  not  be  ended  through  new  compro 
mises  but  only  through  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion  by 
force.1  The  most  cogent  arguments  for  the  Union  ticket, 
however,  were  the  military  victories  of  the  North  during  the 
autumn.  Nor  were  the  efforts  of  some  Democrats  to  con 
vince  the  public  that  the  truth  was  being  concealed  and  that 
in  reality  more  reverses  had  been  suffered  2  of  avail.  The 

1  The  weakness  of  the  Democratic  position  was  illustrated  by  a  speech 
of  A.  Oakey  Hall,  wherein  he  said :  "  Don't  ask  me  what  we  will  do 
when  in  power.     Circumstances  will  rectify  all  defects  and  mistakes 
of  Lincoln  if  they  are  controlled  by  any  other"  (Herald,  Sept.  i). 

2  E.  g.  Samuel  J.  Tilden :  "  The  reported  successes  of  the  Union  arms 
lately  were  doubtful"    (Tribune,  Nov.  i)  ;  Charles  J.  Ingersoll :  "the 
terrible  disasters  to  our  Union  arms,  which  have  been  denominated 
victories"  (Tribune,  Oct.  22).     "We  are  now  rejoicing  over  a  victory 
won  over  the  enemy.     But  where?     In  the  valley  of  the  Shenandoah, 
almost  up  to  the  Pennsylvania  line,  at  a  point  from  which  the  enemy 
retreated  nearly   four  years  ago"    (Argus,   Sept.  23).     "The  studied 
silence  of  Stanton,  and  the  systematic  concealment  or  perversion  of 
intelligence  from  the  armies,  does  not  wholly  shut  out  from  public  view 
the  dangers  of  the  situation."     The  editorial  then  went  on  to  quote 
the  Chicago  Times  as  showing  the  failure  of  Grant's  operations  on  the 
James.     "  The  position  of  Sherman  at  Atlanta,"  it  continued,  "  is  one 
of   great   danger   and   difficulty.     In   order   to   reinforce   him  .  .  .  the 
armies  west  of  the  Mississippi  have  been  depleted  of  their  strength. 
The   consequence   is   that  the    Confederates   have   overrun   Louisiana, 
Arkansas  and  Missouri"   (Argus,  Oct.  18).     An  editorial  in  the  same 
journal  of  November  5th  said:  "It  can  no  longer  be  concealed  that 
General  Grant  ...  has  been  repulsed  with  fearful  loss.  .  .  .  Hood  is 
advancing  North,  through  Tennessee;  and  General  Sherman's  capture 


631]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  43! 

names  of  Grant,  Sherman,  Sheridan,  and  Farragut  were 
constantly  used  by  Unionist  speakers  with  a  certainty  of 
evoking  enthusiasm. 

This  election,  unique  among  our  quadrennial  contests  in 
that  it  took  place  during  a  civil  war,  with  a  large  absentee 
soldier  vote,  with  numerous  bodies  of  troops  stationed  at 
various  points  in  the  North,  and  with  lurking  fears  of  rebel 
conspiracies,  was  naturally  not  wanting  in  excitement.  Be 
fore  the  summer  was  over,  the  McClellan  Minute  Men  of 
New  York  State  had  been  accused  of  being  connected  with 
the  Copperhead  plots  of  the  Northwest.  This  accusation 
brought  forth  indignant  denials ; x  but  in  October,  Judge- 
Advocate-General  Holt's  report  on  the  Knights  of  the 
Golden  Circle  and  like  organizations  lent  official  weight  to 
the  charge.2  However  we  estimate  Holt's  credulity  to-day, 

of  Atlanta  is  rendered  a  fruitless  victory,  .  .  .  General  Price  has  oc 
cupied  Missouri,  and  nearly  all  the  Trans-Mississippi  region  is  in 
the  hands  of  the  Secessionists.  .  .  .  New  privateers  have  been  launched 
upon  the  ocean,  to  afflict  our  commerce,  and  mock  at  our  flag." 

1  "  We  have  received  a  perfect  flood  of  letters  from  individuals  con 
nected  with  the  organization  of   Minute  Men  in  this   city  denying  in 
toto  all  connection  with  the  Northwestern  conspiracy." — Herald,  Aug.  i. 

2  The  report  said  that  the  McClellan  Minute  Guard  "  would  seem  to 
be  a  branch  of  the  Order  of  American  Knights,  having  substantially 
the    same    objects    to    be    accomplished,  .  .  .  The    '  McClellan    Minute 
Guard,'  as  appears  from  a  circular  issued  by  the  Chief  Secretary  at 
New  York  in  March  last,  is  organized  upon  a  military  basis  ...  It  is 
composed  of  companies,  one  for  each  election  district,  ten  of  which 
constitute  a  '  brigade '  .  .  .  The  whole  is  placed  under  the  authority  of 
a  '  commander-in-chief.'    A  strict  obedience  on  the  part  of  members 
to  the  orders  of  their  superior  is  enjoined.  .  .  .  the  force  of  the  order 
...  is  stated  to  be  ...  in  New  York,  about  20,000."     The  report  was 
published  in  the  Tribune,  Oct.  17.     R.  F.  Stevens,  chief  secretary  of  the 
McClellan  Minute  Guard  in  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  World  denied 
that  the  organization  was  of  a  secret  or  traitorous  nature  or  that  it 
was  connected  with  the  Order  of  American  Knights;  the  Guard  was, 
he  declared,   "an  association   for  political  work"    (Letter  quoted  in 
McPherson's  Political  History  of  the  United  States  during  the  Great 
Rebellion,  p.  446). 


432       NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [632 

the  effect  then  can  hardly  be  doubtful.  It  must  have  lent  color 
in  the  minds  of  thousands  of  Unionists  to  the  accusation 
so  frequently  expressed  in  the  Unionist  press  and  by  Union 
ist  stump  speakers  that  the  opposition  was  disloyal.  Holt's 
report  was  ridiculed  by  the  Democrats ;  *  but  in  the  second 
half  of  October  they  in  turn  waxed  indignant  over  the 
election  "  outrages  "  on  the  part  of  their  opponents  in  In 
diana  and  in  the  border  states.2  As  the  campaign  pro 
gressed,  threats  of  violence  in  case  of  interference  with  an 
untrammeled  ballot  became  common  on  the  part  of  Demo 
cratic  speakers.  Ex^Judge  Dean,  late  Democratic  nominee 
for  speaker  of  the  assembly,  was  reported  to  have  said  at  a 
Democratic  ratification  meeting: 

In  Missouri,  Kentucky  and  Delaware  it  would  not  be  a  free 
fight,  and  lest  the  same  thing  should  be  attempted  here,  he 
proposed  that  in  all  the  wards  they  should  form  white-boy 
clubs;  and  if  any  man  came  to  the  ballot  boxes  to  prevent 
them  casting  their  votes  freely,  let  the  white  boys  take  care  of 
him,  put  him  where  he  belongs,  hang  him.3 

At  the  end  of  October  occurred  the  revelations  of  alleged 
frauds  in  connection  with  the  soldiers'  ballots.  Both  sides 
sent  agents  to  the  camps  in  order  to  procure  these  votes.4 
One  Ferry,  New  York  State  agent  at  Baltimore,  as  well  as 
Edward  Donohue  and  two  others.  Democratic  voting 

1  Argus,  Aug.  2,  3,  Oct.  19. 

2  Argus,  Oct.  20,  21,  22,  24,  Nov.  3,  4. 

3  Tribune,  Sept.  i.     Similar  appeals,  though  not  so  strong,  were  made 
during    the    campaign    by    Judge    Comstock,    Representative    Chanler, 
C.  J.  Ingersoll,  and  John  McKeon. 

4  Tribune,  Oct.  27.     A  power  of  attorney  had  to  be  executed  by  the 
soldier  desiring  to  vote.     Hence  the  necessity  of  employing  agents  to 
visit  the  camps  (Circular  of  the  Union  State  Committee,  Herald,  July 
28). 


633]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  433 

agents,  were  arrested  by  the  provost  marshal  at  that  city 
on  the  charge  of  impersonating  officers  and  soldiers  in  the 
army  of  the  United  States,  and  as  such  forging  on  ballots 
and  on  the  required  accompanying  affidavits  the  names  of 
those  in  that  service.1  At  the  same  time,  Colonel  Samuel 
North,  New  York  State  agent  at  Washington,  as  well  as 
Major  Levi  Cohen  and  Edward  Jones,  two  subordinate  offi 
cials  at  the  state  agency,  were  arrested  on  similar  charges. 
The  office  was  closed,  and  the  soldiers'  ballots  ready  to 
be  deposited  were  seized.2  Ferry  pleaded  guilty  con 
fessing  to  have  signed  the  names  of  a  number  of  soldiers 
and  accusing  Donohue  of  affixing  the  required  officer's 
name.3  Donohue  at  first  denied  complicity,  and  telegraphed 
for  aid  to  Peter  Cagger  and  to  Sanford  E.  Church.4  Later 
Donohue  confessed  to  having  signed  blanks  with  the  name 
of  "  C.  S.  Arthur,  captain  and  aid-de-camp,"  but  claimed 
that  no  offence  was  committed  inasmuch  as  there  was  no 
officer  by  that  name  in  the  service  of  New  York  State  or 
of  the  United  States.5  In  the  press  dispatches,  it  was  alleged 
that  several  dry-goods  boxes  of  forged  votes  for  the  Demo 
cratic  national  and  state  tickets  had  been  forwarded  to  New 
York.6  Further,  the  Unionists  were  worked  up  over  the  dis 
covery  of  a  letter  from  Donohue  to  General  Farrell  of  Gov 
ernor  Seymour's  staff,  which  read :  "  I  send  you  ...  a 
number  of  ballots  for  your  county.  -I  have  made  out  a 
number  from  the  list  you  sent  me  ...  I  guess  you  have 
enough.  Fearing  that  you  might  not,  I  enclose  envelopes 
and  powers  of  attorney  sworn  to;  you  can  fill  them  up  for 
•Columbia  or  any  other  county."  7. 

1  Herald,  Oct.  28.  *  Ibid. 

a  Ibid.  *  Ibid. 

5  Herald,  Oct.  29.  6  Herald,  Oct.  28. 

1  Herald,  Oct.  29. 


434       NEW  yORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR     [634 

Of  course,  the  Unionists  sought  to  make  the  utmost  party 
capital  out  of  this  incident.  The  Tribune  contained  long 
editorials  against  the  alleged  frauds  under  such  captions 
as  "  The  Crime  against  the  People,"  "  Democratic  Ballot 
ing  among  the  Dead  Soldiers,"  "  Call  the  Roll  Instantly;" 
and  it  advocated  the  immediate  organization  throughout  the 
State  of  "  Vigilance  committees,  composed  of  men  of  nerve 
and  familiar  with  their  districts."  1  Beecher  called  the 
frauds  monstrous.2  The  Union  State  Committee  issued 
an  address,3  giving  the  "  details  of  this  gigantic  attempt  at 
fraud,"  and  declaring  that  the 

men  who  attempted  these  frauds  are  the  confidants  and  em 
ployes  of  Governor  Seymour,  Peter  Cagger,  August  Bel- 
mont,  and  other  leaders  of  the  Copperhead  party.  The  in 
formation  by  which  they  were  enabled  to  give  the  names  of 
soldiers  and  the  companies  and  regiments  to  which  they  be 
longed  could  only  have  been  obtained  from  the  Adjutant-Gen 
eral's  office  of  this  State,  .  .  .  The  places  where  these  papers 
were  forged,  and  from  whence  they  were  issued,  were  the 
offices  of  the  State  agents  appointed  by  Governor  Seymour  at 
Baltimore  and  Washington.  The  persons  to  whom  the  forged 
documents  are  known  to  have  been  sent  are  Peter  Cagger  and 
General  Farrell. 

The  Democratic  press  and  stump  speakers  were  indignant 
at  the  arrests.  It  was  all  a  "  Lincoln  Plot."  They  claimed 
that  the  witnesses  were  perjured  and  that  the  stories  were 

1  Tribune,  Oct.  29;  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  (October  2Qth)  spoke 
of    the    "infamous   plot"    and    of    this    "attempted    pollution    of    the 
ballot-box  and  this  desecration  of  the  grave."    "  The  crime  confessed !" 
it  exclaimed.    "  Not  a  loop  to  hang  a  doubt  upon !     To  deny  the  fraud 
now  is  to  be  a  party  to  it."    The  issue  of  November  ist  was  largely 
occupied  with  editorials  on  the  frauds. 

2  Tribune,  Nov.  7. 

3  Printed  in  the  Tribune,  Nov.  3. 


635]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  435 

manufactured  to  prevent  McClellan  ballots  from  being  cast. 
Counter  charges  of  fraud  were  made  and  it  was  declared 
that  unfair  obstacles  had  been  placed  in  the  way  of  Demo 
cratic  agents.1  The  Argus  matched  the  Tribune  editorials 
with  one  headed,  "  The  Great  Crime  against  the  Soldiers." 
It  asserted  that  men  in  the  army  were  voting  by  tens  of  thou 
sands  for  McClellan  and  Seymour  when  the  administration 
seized  the  ballots  and  arrested  the  agents ;  and  the  voters  of 
New  York  were  urged  "  to  vindicate  the  rights  of  the  sol 
diers  and  the  cause  of  Republican  government."2  "In  the  his 
tory  of  outrage  and  crime  which  make  up  the  black 
chronicle  of  a  Lincoln  Administration,"  said  another  edi 
torial,  "  there  is  no  darker  deed  than  this !  It  reveals  the 
terror  and  desperation  of  the  Washington  junto."  3 

Governor  Seymour  issued  a  proclamation  appointing 
three  prominent  Democrats,  Amasa  J.  Parker,  William  F. 
Allen,  and  William  Kelly,  commissioners  on  behalf  of  the 
State  of  New  York  to  proceed  to  Washington,  inquire  into 
the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  arrests  and 

take  such  action  ...  as  will  vindicate  the  laws  of  the  State 
and  the  rights  and  liberties  of  its  citizens,  to  the  end  that  .  .  . 
all  attempts  to  prevent  soldiers  from  this  State  in  the  service 
of  the  United  States  from  voting,  or  to  defraud  them,  or  to 
coerce  their  action  in  voting,  or  to  detain  or  alter  the  votes 
already  cast  by  them  .  .  .  may  be  exposed  and  punished.4 

The  commissioners,  on  arriving  at  Washington,  protested 
against  the  jurisdiction  assumed  by  the  United  States  in  the 
case.  They  obtained  the  seized  ballots,  but  they  failed  to 

1  Argus,  Oct.  29,  Nov.  i,  2,  5;  New  York  World,  Oct.  29;  Tribune, 
Oct.  29,  31;  Herald,  Oct.  30,  Nov.  i  (speech  of  Recorder  Hoffman). 
*  Argus,  Oct.  29.  3  Argus,  Oct.  28. 

4  Herald,  Oct.  31. 


436      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  W AR      [636 

secure  the  release  of  North,  Cohen,  and  Jones,  or  even 
the  postponement  of  their  trial  until  after  the  election.1 
The  commissioners'  report,  published  in  the  press  two 
days  before  the  election,  declared  that  while  there  might 
have  been  irregularities,  they  had  found  no  evidence  that 
any  frauds  had  been  committed  by  any  person  connected 
with  the  New  York  agency.  The  document  also  contained 
a  harrowing  account  of  the  treatment  of  the  prisoners,  which 
must  have  fed  Democratic  indignation  against  the  arbitrary 
actions  of  the  administration.2 

Orders  issued  by  General  Dix,  who  commanded  the  De 
partment  of  the  East,  were  of  a  nature  to  add  to  the  pre 
vailing  excitement.  Under  date  of  October  28th  3  he  stated 
that  he  had  received  satisfactory  information  that  rebel 
agents  in  Canada  designed  to  send  into  the  United  States 
large  numbers  of  refugees,  deserters  and  enemies  of  the  gov 
ernment  to  vote  at  the  approaching  election,  and  that  he 
was  determined  to  guard  the  purity  of  the  elective  franchise 
against  the  threatened  outrages ;  every  such  person  was  to  be 
arrested,  provost  marshals  were  directed  to  exercise  all  pos 
sible  vigilance,  and  all  persons  from  the  insurgent  states  were 
required  forthwith  to  report  themselves  for  registry.  In  a 
letter  of  October  29th,  Senator  Morgan  wrote  to  Stanton 
both  at  the  request  of  others  and  in  accordance  with  his  own 
judgment,  desiring  that  three  thousand  troops  be  sent  to 

1  Report   of  the   New  York   Commission,   published  in   the   Herald, 
Nov.  5. 

2  Donohue  and  Ferry  were  convicted  by  a  military  commission  and 
sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  life   (Tribune,  Nov.  2).     The  trial  of 
Colonel   North   dragged   on    for   some   time.    Finally,   he   as   well   as 
Cohen  and  Jones  were  acquitted  and  released   (Croly's  Seymour  and 
Blair,  pp.   135,   136.     Confirmed  as  to  Colonel   North  by  the  Annual 
Cyclopedia  for  1864,  p.  588.    An  attempt  to  have  the  manuscript  records 
consulted  in  order  to  corroborate  the  above,  was  unsuccessful.) 

3  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Oct.  29. 


637]      THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY      437 

New  York  immediately.1  Stanton  had  already  urged  on 
Grant  the  advisability  of  such  a  move.2  The  troops  conse 
quently  were  sent,  and  Butler  was  selected  for  the  immediate 
work  in  hand.3  On  November  2nd,  Dix  issued  to  all  pro 
vost  marshals  in  his  department  further  orders  similar  to 
those  of  October  28th ;  he  also  directed  that  no  military  force 
be  stationed  at  or  in  the  vicinity  of  any  of  the  polls,  and  that 
there  be  no  interference  whatsoever  with  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  suffrage,  but  if  the  civil  authorities  called  upon 
provost  marshals  to  aid  in  keeping  the  peace,  the  latter  were 
authorized  to  do  so,  acting  in  strict  subordination  to  the 
former.4 

Seymour  apparently  was  uneasy  because  of  Dix's  order. 
On  November  2nd  the  Governor  issued  a  proclamation,5 
referring  to  "  the  painful  and  exciting  doubts  in  the 
minds  of  many  with  regard  to  the  free  and  untram 
melled  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  " ;  he  appealed  to 
men  of  all  parties  to  aid  in  the  allayment  of  undue  excite 
ment  and  to  "  avoid  all  measures  and  language  which  tend 
to  strife  or  disorder."  "  There  are  no  well  grounded 
fears,"  the  proclamation  went  on,  "  that  the  rights  of  the 
citizens  of  New  York  will  be  trampled  upon  at  the  polls. 
The  power  of  this  State  is  ample  to  protect  all  classes  in  the 
free  exercise  of  their  political  duties."  Sheriffs  and  other 
officials  were  directed  to  take  care  that  every  voter  should 
have  a  free  ballot  and  they  were  especially  enjoined  to  see 
that 

1  Letter  of  Morgan  to  Stanton  in  Gorham's  Stanton,  ii,  p.  157. 

*  Letter  of  Stanton  to  Grant  and  Grant's  reply  in  Gorham's  Stanton, 
ii,  pp.  156-7. 

8  Butler's  Book,  pp.  754,  757,  1097.  Two  regiments  were  sent  to 
Buffalo,  and  one  hundred  men  to  Watervliet  (Butler's  Book,  p.  1094). 

4  Printed  in  the  Tribune,  Nov.  4. 

6  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Nov.  3. 


438      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR       [638 

no  military  or  other  organized  forces  shall  be  allowed  to  show 
themselves  in  the  vicinity  of  the  places  where  the  elections  are 
held,  with  any  view  of  menacing  or  intimidating  citizens  in 
attending  thereon.  Against  any  such  interference  they  must 
exercise  the  full  force  of  law,  and  call  forth,  if  need  be,  the 
power  of  their  districts. 

The  assignment  of  Butler  to  the  command  of  the  federal 
soldiers  stationed  in  New  York  State  increased  the  ire  of  the 
Democrats.1  Butler  also  issued,  on  the  eve  of  the  election, 
a  warning  order  against  fraudulent  voting.2 

Besides  the  tense  feeling  produced  by  these  pronuncia- 
mentos  on  each  side,  there  were  fears  of  rebel  raids  at 
Buffalo  and  Oswego.3  Moreover,  the  press  published  a  dis 
patch  4  from  Secretary  Seward  to  Mayor  Gunther  warning 
the  latter  of  a  conspiracy  to  set  fire  to  the  principal  cities  of 
the  North  on  election  day.  Finally,  an  attempt  was  made 
to  force  the  price  of  gold  up  to  300,  the  idea  being  to  asso 
ciate  the  possible  success  of  the  Union  ticket  with  higher 
prices,  more  paper  money,  and  a  prolongation  of  the  war. 
To  foil  this  plot,  the  Assistant  Treasurer  at  New  York  City 
was  authorized  to  sell  gold,  and  this  he  did  from  October 
3ist  until  just  before  election.5 

The  critical  day  passed  off  quietly.     The  federal  troops, 

1  "  We  will  not  characterize  as  it  deserves  the  conduct  of  the  Ad 
ministration  in  sending  to  New  York  on  the  eve  of  the  election  a  man 
like  Butler  ...  his  career  in  the  army  is  calculated  to  arouse  bitter 
indignation !" — Argus,  Nov.  8.     Some  supporters  of  the  administration, 
including  Weed,   doubted  the  expediency  of   sending   Butler  to   New 
York  at  that  time  (Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  374). 

2  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Nov.  7. 

3  Tribune,  Nov.  7 ;  letter,  dated  Aug.  9,  1864  to  Governor  Seymour, 
signed   by    Mayor    Fargo    of    Buffalo,    Millard    Fillmore    and    others 
(Fillmore  Papers,  ii,  p.  429). 

4  Printed  in  the  Herald,  Nov.  4. 

5  Fessenden's  Life  of  Fessenden,  i,  p.  355 ;  Butler's  Book,  pp.  762, 
767,  1095,  1096,  1098. 


639]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  439 

while  in  readiness,  were  kept  away  from  the  polls ; l  the 
sheriffs  had  no  cause  to  call  "  upon  the  power  of  their  dis 
tricts  ;"  deserters  and  rebels,  if  any  were  at  hand,  were  ap 
parently  frightened  by  the  vigilance  of  Dix  and  Butler.2 
Supporters  of  the  administration  had  cause  for  satisfaction 
in  the  election  of  an  increased  number  of  Union  congressmen 
from  New  York  State,  including  Henry  J.  Raymond,  Wil 
liam  Earl  Dodge,  Calvin  T.  Hulburd,  and  Roscoe  Conkling. 
Unionists  might  well  rejoice  in  the  retirement  from  New 
York  City's  delegation  of  some  of  the  principal  Copperhead 
members  of  Congress :  Fernando  and  Benjamin  Wood, 
James  Brooks,  and  Anson  Herrick.3  The  results  of  the 
presidential  contest,  so  far  as  New  York  State  was  con 
cerned,  were  not  such  an  endorsement  of  the  administration 
as  its  adherents  hoped  for.  Indeed,  so  close  did  the  re 
spective  candidates  run,  that  for  several  days  after  the 
election,  the  Argus  claimed  a  Democratic  majority  in  this 
State.4  At  the  end  of  the  month,  the  same  journal  daily 
repeated  the  charge  that  soldiers'  ballots  for  the  Democratic 
candidates  were  being  systematically  detained,  and  that  the 
State  had  been  carried  for  the  administration  by  fraud.5 
Although  those  in  the  federal  military  service  voted  this 
year,  Lincoln  won  New  York  by  less  than  7,000  and  Fen- 
ton  by  less  than  9,000.® 

1  For  Butler's  ingenious  scheme,  see  Butler's  Book,  p.  759. 

2  Tribune,  Nov.  9;  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  ix,  p.  374. 

3  Brooks  was  sworn  in  at  the  opening  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress, 
but  was  later  unseated.    The  delegation  as  finally  constituted  showed  a 
gain  of  six  Unionists. 

4  Argus,  Nov.  10,  n,  12.    As  late  as  the  I2th,  a  leading  editorial  in 
that  paper  was  headed,  "  The  State — Mr.  Fenton  to  be  counted  in." 

5  E.  g.  Argus,  Nov.  24.     The  Albany  Evening  Journal  (Nov.  19)  in 
reply  said  that  since  the  election,   soldiers'  votes  had  probably  been 
received  at  almost  every  post  office  in  the  country;  but  it  denied  that 
these  votes  or  even  a  majority  of  them  were  Democratic. 

6  Albany  Evening  Journal  Almanac  for  1865. 


44o      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR       [640 

The  astonishingly  large  Democratic  vote  was  probably 
due  in  part  to  the  very  numerous  pre-election  naturalizations 
in  New  York  City ; l  and  perhaps,  the  Tribune's  accusations 
of  wholesale  frauds  in  the  lower  wards 2  were  not  un 
founded.  Nevertheless,  that  the  administration  had  lost 
strength  is  shown  by  the  very  slight  increase  in  the  vote  for 
Lincoln  in  1864  over  that  in  1860,  while  the  Democratic 
vote  for  McClellan  was  about  60,000  more  than  that  cast 
for  the  fusion  electors  in  1860.  To  account  for  the  loss, 
there  are  no  charges  of  treachery  in  the  Union  camp  as  in 
1862.  Thurlow  Weed  had  now  routed  his  adversaries 
from  the  federal  patronage  and  worked  heartily  for  Lin 
coln.3  After  the  collapse  of  the  Fremont  boom,  the  radicals 
did  so  too.  Repeated  military  and  naval  victories  for  the 
North  in  the  autumn  of  1864  eliminated  another  factor 
which  had  told  against  VVadsworth.  The  apathy  in  the 
Unionist  ranks  disappeared  long  before  the  election,  and 
their  campaign  was  just  as  vigorous  as  that  of  the  Demo 
crats.  During  the  preceding  twelvemonth,  the  government 
had  done  nothing  to  provoke  an  upheaval  of  public  opinion 

1  Tribune,   Oct.  27 :  "  For  the  past  three  weeks  the  Superior  Court 
and  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  have  been  daily  engaged  in  rushing 
through  new  voters  from  9  a.  m.  to  3  p.  m.  ...  It  is  estimated  that  by 
Saturday  night  no  less  than  15,000  new  voters  will  be  added  to  the 
electoral  strength  of  the  City."     The  Tribune  of  November  9th  esti 
mated  the  number  of  such  new  voters  at  25,000  to  30,000.     The  Herald 
of   October   2gth   said:   "There  will  be  by  the   day  of  election   from 
fifteen  to  twenty  thousand  foreigners  naturalized."     Some  share  in  the 
result,  perhaps,  may  be  attributed  to  the  large  numbers  of  men  from 
the    Southern    states  who   had   become   residents    of    New    York    City 
(Herald,  Oct.  29). 

2  Tribune,  Nov.  9. 

"...  when  the  Presidential  campaign  was  commenced  he  [Weed] 
hired  a  suit  of  rooms  at  the  Astor  House,  adjourning  those  occupied 
by  the  Republican  State  Committee,  and  personally  superintended  the 
affairs  of  that  body" — Herald,  Dec.  14. 


641]  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE  PEACE  PARTY  44! 

on  the  slavery  question,  nor  had  it  entered  upon  any  general 
course  of  arbitrary  actions  such  as  might  have  weakened 
the  Unionist  strength  shown  in  1863.  The  heavy  McClel- 
lan  vote,  other  than  that  due  to  naturalization  and  fraud, 
must  then  be  attributed  to  the  popularity  of  the  General, 
weariness  with  the  war,  its  burdens,  its  high  prices,  and  its 
drafts,  and  lastly  to  the  fact  that  many  saw  no  reasonable 
prospect  of  a  restoration  of  the  Union  without  a  change  in 
the  policy  of  the  administration  and  hence  a  change  in  the 
administration  itself. 


CONCLUSION 

DURING  the  Civil  War,  the  administration  at  Washing 
ton  waged  a  twofold  contest,  political  in  the  North- 
to  secure  the  support  of  public  opinion — as  well  as  mili 
tary  in  the  South.  Leading  men  of  that  time,  both 
civilians  and  soldiers,  frequently  expressed  the  opinion  that 
victory  in  the  political  field  was  of  no  less  consequence  than 
success  in  battle,  and  such  assertions  were  not  unfounded, 
since  the  defeat  of  the  opposition  in  the  elections  meant 
the  upholding  of  the  administration  by  the  people  and 
state  governments  of  the  North.  In  few  or  none  of  our 
commonwealths  was  this  support  of  more  importance  or 
more  difficult  to  retain  than  in  New  York.  However  pleas 
ant  it  might  be  if  history  could  show  us  a  united  people, 
laying  aside  party  strife  and  patriotically  sustaining  the 
government  in  its  efforts  to  subdue  the  rebellion,  the  pic 
ture,  so  far  as  New  York  is  concerned,  is  true  only  for  the 
few  months  following  the  attack  upon  Fort  Sumter.  Save 
during  that  period  and,  to  a  much  less  degree,  in  the  early 
part  of  1862,  politics  in  New  York  were  at  a  heat  that 
has  seldom  been  exceeded.  This  condition  in  the  principal 
commonwealth  of  the  Union  can  hardly  have  been  without 
a  very  great  influence  on  the  growth  of  an  opposition  to  the 
national  administration  in  other  states. 

The  Civil  War  gave  a  tone  to  New  York  politics.     Be 
ginning  with  1861,  the  political  situation  in  this  State  dur 
ing  the  war  presents  two  main  features,  both  existing  in 
the  shape  of  tendencies  before  that  date  but  after  it  becom- 
442  [642 


643]  CONCLUSION  443 

ing  well  marked  and  almost  universal  characteristics.  In 
the  first  place,  state  politics  turned  exclusively  on  national 
questions,  while  administrative  matters  of  a  more  local  na 
ture,  such  as  had  formerly  caused  political  divisions,  quite 
disappeared  as  subjects  of  partisan  alignment.  Secondly, 
the  opposition  to  Thurlow  Weed,  led  by  Greeley,  grew 
into  a  strong  faction;  the  struggle  between  the  Weed  and 
Greeley  adherents  continually  gave  color  to  events  within 
the  Republican  party  and  its  successor  the  Union  party 
within  the  State;  and  in  this  contest,  the  opposing  ranks 
developed  into  radical  and  conservative  wings. 

Thus,  those  who  upheld  the  national  administration  in 
New  York  were  not  only  weakened  by  the  existence  of 
a  strong  opposition  party  but  also  embittered  by  internal 
feuds.  For  the  latter,  Thurlow  Weed  was  largely  charge 
able.  Magnificent  politician  though  he  was,  genuine  lover 
of  his  country,  he — whether  through  Seward's  fault  or  his 
own — mistakenly  reversed  his  former  course  to  enter  upon 
his  border  state  policy ;  and  in  his  hatred  of  abolitionists,  he 
at  times  during  the  war  approached  quite  close  to  Demo 
cratic  ground.  Weed  in  his  worship  of  the  god  of  expedi 
ency  lost  a  rare  chance  of  rising  to  the  elevation  of  a  states 
man.  Had  his  influence  been  removed,  there  is  little  or 
nothing  to  show  that  the  administration  supporters  in  this 
State  would  have  split  into  radical  and  conservative  wings. 
At  least,  his  evil  genius  was  responsible  for  the  extent  of  the 
division.  It  was,  then,  quite  natural  that  Weed,  Seward, 
Raymond,  and  their  followers  passed  over  to  the  side  of 
Andrew  Johnson  in  1866,  while  their  opponents  supported 
the  congressional  majority.  The  foundation  for  that  schism, 
so  far  as  this  State  was  concerned,  was  laid  in  the  factions 
of  war  times. 

One  effect  of  the  war  was  the  amalgamation  of  the  old 
time  "  hards "  and  "  softs "  of  the  Democracy  and  the 


444      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR      [644 

decaying  remains  of  former  third  parties.  In  so  great  a 
heat,  where  the  appeal  to  unite  in  behalf  of  country  was  so 
urgent,  one  may  wonder  that  the  fusing  process  was  not 
carried  further,  that  partisan  strife  was  not  hushed,  that  all 
did  not  join  in  presenting  a  solid  front  to  the  South.  The 
importance  of  this  was  thoroughly  realized  at  the  time. 
The  degree  to  which  the  North  would  be  weakened  in  com 
parison  with  the  unanimity  in  the  greater  part  of  the  South 
was  well  understood.  It  was  from  such  considerations 
that  the  Union  party  took  its  inception.  Beginning  with 
joint  action  by  a  People's  State  Convention  and  a  Republi 
can  State  Convention  in  nominating  a  Union  state  ticket  in 
1 86 1,  the  movement  progressed  by  the  harmonious  steps 
taken  by  administration  supporters  in  the  Legislature  to  a 
Republican-Union  State  Convention  in  1862;  in  1863,  the 
name  Republican  was  entirely  dropped,  and  the  party  was 
spoken  of  under  the  designation  Union  until  after  the  end 
of  the  war.  Along  with  this  change  went  an  absorption 
of  War  Democrats. 

The  mass  of  the  Democrats,  however,  refused  to  go  into 
the  Union  party.  For  this,  the  leaders  and  especially  the 
Regency  were  to  blame.  Had  their  action  in  September, 
1 86 1,  been  the  reverse  of  what  it  was,  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  political  contention  in  New  York  might  have 
been  stilled  until  the  middle  of  the  next  year  if  not  longer. 
The  soundness  of  this  presumption  is  supported  by  the  un 
questionable  fact  that  the  majority  of  the  Democrats  of  New 
York  had  no  real  love  for  slavery.  But  the  influence  of 
party  was  too  strong  and  the  vision  too  narrow  for  those 
in  control  of  the  machinery  to  rise  so  high.  Thus  the 
latter  deliberately  rejected  the  proffer  of  their  oppon 
ents  to  unite  in  sustaining  the  government.  Instead,  they 
entered  the  path  of  an  opposition  in  the  midst  of  a  gigantic 
national  struggle  for  life,  at  the  same  time  affirming  with 


645]  CONCLUSION  445 

varying  intensity  and  provisos  from  time  to  time  their  in 
tention  to  uphold  the  government  in  suppressing  the  rebel 
lion.  This  program  was  thoroughly  inconsistent.  To  sup 
port  the  war  and  at  the  same  time  to  condemn  with  the  most 
intemperate  criticism  the  administration  which  must  carry 
on  the  war,  as  well  as  its  measures  for  subduing  the  enemy, 
was  pulling  in  contrary  directions.  It  was  but  natural  that 
the  New  York  Democracy  drifted  toward  the  position  of 
the  Copperheads. 

The  prediction  was  frequently  made  during  those  times 
that  because  of  their  opposition  to  a  government  striving  to 
preserve  the  nation,  the  Democrats  would  meet  with  the 
fate  of  the  Federalists.  Yet  the  New  York  Democracy 
emerged  from  this  period  as  strong  as  it  went  in  if  not 
stronger.  The  comparatively  moderate  course  which  it 
pursued,  however  illogical,  probably  helped  to  save  it. 
Extremists  like  the  Woods  were  held  in  check  by  such  men 
as  Richmond  and  Church  who  favored  the  prosecution  of 
the  war,  and  by  cautious  counselors  like  Seymour  who 
saw  the  danger  of  pronouncing  against  it.  And  so  the 
Democrats,  claiming  to  be  a  genuine  war  party,  won  the 
election  of  1862.  Governor  Seymour  was  a  patriot,  but  not 
a  statesman  of  the  higher  type.  It  is  true  that  he  did  not 
fulfill  the  direst  predictions  of  his  opponents  by  refusing 
support  to  the  national  government.  He  did  not  resort  to 
violence  in  protecting  state  rights.  But  he  was  perilously 
near  to  that.  The  harmony  which  prevailed  between  the 
state  officials  and  those  at  Washington  until  1863  and  which 
was  so  necessary  to  bring  the  contest  to  a  successful  termina 
tion,  was  to  a  great  extent  absent  during  Seymour's  admin 
istration,  and  that  condition  was  not  due  to  Lincoln  or  his 
assistants.  The  climax  came  with  the  draft  riot.  The 
share  of  the  Democratic  leaders  and  press,  Seymour  in 
cluded,  in  arousing  the  fierce  resistance  to  the  act  for  en- 


446      NEW  YORK  STATE  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR       [646 

rolling  and  drafting  cannot  be  doubted,  though  the  con 
clusion  took  a  different  direction  from  what  Seymour  and 
all  but  the  most  sanguinary  Copperheads  intended.  From 
the  controversy  over  the  conscription  Seymour  emerged  the 
smaller,  while  Lincoln's  tact  and  firmness  gave  renewed 
proof  of  his  statesmanship.  The  Unionists  won  back  the 
State,  and  fortified  their  hold  by  giving  the  ballot  to  the 
soldier.  So  great,  however,  were  the  internal  dissensions  in 
the  party,  so  strongly  intrenched  were  the  Democrats  in  the 
local  offices  in  the  extreme  southern  counties,  so  promising 
was  their  outlook  for  controlling  the  spoils  in  the  future, 
that  in  1864  Lincoln  carried  the  State  by  only  a  very  small 
majority.  The  Unionists,  or  as  they  were  soon  after  once 
more  called,  the  Republicans,  lost  as  a  party  in  this  State 
the  legitimate  fruits  of  the  war;  the  Democrats  came  forth 
from  it  hopeful  and  powerful ;  and  New  York  continued  to 
be  a  well-contested  battle  ground. 

At  the  close  of  the  war,  then,  we  find  in  New  York  State  a 
Union  party  composed  of  the  supporters  of  the  national 
administration  confronting  its  enemies  united  in  the  Demo 
cratic  organization.  The  remnants  of  third  parties  had  dis 
appeared.  Moreover,  the  old  divisions  between  Douglas  and 
Breckinridge  followers  had  been  healed,  and  no  more  was 
heard  of  "  hards  "  and  "  softs."  So  that  outside  of  the 
metropolis  the  Democracy  had  gained  unity  since  1860;  but 
this  weakened  the  checks  upon  the  power  of  the  up-State 
leaders.  Thus,  while  Tammany  was  still  able  to  contend 
with  the  Regency,  Mozart  had  been  split  into  fragments, 
and  the  days  when  it  was  able  to  fight  on  a  plane  of  equality 
with  its  rivals  were  over.  At  the  end  of  the  war,  Dean 
Richmond's  ascendency  was  undiminished.  Seymour's  in 
fluence  had  greatly  increased.  Although  Fernando  Wood 
was  again  to  sit  in  Congress  during  the  ten  years  fol 
lowing  1867,  he  had  ceased  to  be  the  important  factor  in 


647]  CONCLUSION  447 

New  York  politics  that  he  was  in  1860.     By  1865,  Tweed 
and  Sweeney  had  come  to  the  front  in  Tammany. 

The  strife  which  in  1860  already  showed  its  head  in 
the  Republican  ranks  of  New  York  State  persisted  and 
grew  in  the  successor  of  that  party,  so  that  the  close  of  the 
war  found  the  Unionists  there  sharply  arrayed  in  two 
camps.  These  dissensions  arose  not  merely  from  antago 
nism  to  Weed  but  also  from  differences  over  the  questions 
arising  out  of  the  war.  By  1865  what  may  be  termed  the 
first  series  of  such  issues,  in  contradistinction  to  those  re 
lating  to  construction,  had  been  settled  by  the  course  of 
events  in  favor  of  the  anti-Weed  faction.  Weed  was  still 
of  influence  in  the  party,  but  his  power  had  been  greatly 
shaken  if  not  eclipsed  during  the  period  here  considered. 
Though  Seward  was  as  yet  looked  upon  as  the  head  of  the 
conservatives  and  was  very  probably  consulted  by  Weed,  the 
Secretary  was  apparently  no  longer  active  in  state  politics 
at  the  end  of  the  war.  Raymond  had  grown  in  political 
stature.  While  the  later  prominence  of  Fenton  and  Conkiing 
had  not  fully  appeared  at  the  beginning  of  1865,  and  the 
radical  wing  was  still  more  or  less  guided  by  Greeley,  never 
theless  in  personal  leadership  as  in  political  Issues  the  way 
had  been  prepared  for  the  triumph  of  that  faction;  for 
within  a  short  time  from  that  date  Seward,  Weed,  and  Ray 
mond  all  were  overthrown  on  the  question  of  supporting 
President  Johnson,  and  Fenton  constructed  a  radical  ma 
chine  which  controlled  the  State. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


No  attempt  at  a  complete  bibliography  has  been  made  here;  there  is 
merely  an  endeavor  to  indicate  the  main  groups  of  material  on  the 

subject. 

A.  NEWSPAPERS. 

These  constitute  the  principal  sources  of  information  on  New  York 
politics  during  the  war.     I  have  made  use  especially  of  the  following: 

1.  The  Albany  Argus. 

2.  The  Albany  Evening  Journal. 

3.  The  New  York  Tribune. 

4.  The  New  York  Herald. 

These  four  papers  were  among  the  dozen  or  so  which  had  reporters 
at  the  sessions  of  the  legislature.  The  Albany  papers  in  particular 
published  very  full  reports  of  the  legislative  proceedings  and  debates. 
Moreover,  both  the  Argus  and  the  Evening  Journal  had  great  influence 
with  the  up-State  press,  and  probably  were  very  widely  copied.  The 
two  New  York  City  papers  were  selected  as  representatives  of  opposite 
political  faiths.  The  Herald,  while  containing  more  information  on 
politics  than  the  Tribune,  must  be  used  with  greater  caution. 

B.  PUBLIC  DOCUMENTS. 

Messages  from  the  Governors.  Edited  by  Charles  Z.  Lincoln. 
Vol.  v.  Albany,  1909. 

New  York  State  Assembly  Journal,  1860-1864  inclusive.  Albany, 
1861-5. 

New  York  State  Senate  Journal,  1860-1864  inclusive.  Albany, 
1861-5. 

Report  of  the  Adjutant  General  of  the  State  of  New  York  for 
1864  and  1865.  Albany,  1864-5.  Useful  for  the  relations  of 
Seymour  and  the  federal  authorities. 

Report  of  the  Select  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  ap 
pointed  to  investigate  the  Ring  Frauds.  New  York,  1878. 

C.  WORKS,    LETTERS    AND    SPEECHES    OF    CONTEMPORARY    STATESMEN    AND 

POLITICIANS. 

Belmont,  August.    Letters,  Speeches  and  Addresses.     New  York, 

1890. 
Bigelow,  John.     Retrospections  of  an  Active  Life.     New  York, 

1909. 

448  [648 


649]  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


449 


Boutwell,  George  S.  Reminiscences  of  Sixty  Years  in  Public  Af 
fairs.  New  York,  1902. 

Buchanan,  James.  Works.  Edited  by  J.  B.  Moore.  Philadelphia, 
1908-1911. 

Chase,  Salmon  P.  Diary  and  Correspondence.  (American  Histor 
ical  Association  Report,  1902,  vol.  ii.)  Washington,  1903. 

Cochrane,  John.  "  The  Charleston  Convention."  Magazine  of 
American  History,  vol.  xiv.  New  York,  1885.  Cochrane  was 
a  leading  member  of  the  New  York  delegation. 

Dickinson,  Daniel  S.  Speeches,  Correspondence,  etc.  Edited  by 
John  R.  Dickinson.  New  York,  1867. 

Greeley,  Horace.    Recollections  of  a  Busy  Life.     New  York,  1868. 

Lincoln,  Abraham.  Complete  Works.  Edited  by  John  G.  Nico- 
lay  and  John  Hay.  Gettysburg  Edition.  New  York,  1905.  Vol 
ume  vi  is  especially  useful  for  the  subject  here  treated. 

Schurz,  Carl.  Reminiscences.  New  York,  1907-8.  Volume  ii  con 
tains  one  or  two  items  relating  to  New  York  political  history. 

Seymour,  Horatio.  Public  Record.  By  T.  M.  Cook  and  T.  W. 
Knox.  New  York,  1868. 

Tilden,  Samuel  J.  Letters  and  Literary  Memorials.  Edited  by 
John  Bigelow.  New  York,  1908.  Volume  i  contains  some  ma 
terial  used  here.  However,  it  has  astonishingly  little  on  Tilden's 
political  career  during  the  war. 

Weed,  Thurlow.  Autobiography.  Boston,  1884.  Very  useful, 
though  not  very  full  for  the  years  1860-1864. 

Welles,  Gideon.  "Diary."  Atlantic  Monthly,  vols.  ciii,  civ.  Boston. 
1909. 

Welles,  Gideon.     Lincoln  and  Seward.     New  York,  1874. 

White,  Andrew  D.     Autobiography.     New  York,  1905. 
D.  BIOGRAPHIES. 

Most  of  the  books  listed  below  contain  very  little  on  the  subject  of 
this  monograph,  but  in  some  of  them  that  little  consists  of  source  ma 
terial  in  the  shape  of  letters. 

Bancroft,  Frederic.  Life  of  William  H.  Seward.  New  York, 
1900. 

Barnes,  T.  W.     Memoir  of  Thurlow  Weed.     Boston,  1884. 

Bigelow,  John.    Life  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden.     New  York,  1895. 

Burt,  Silas  W.  My  Memoirs  of  the  Military  History  of  the  State 
of  New  York  during  the  War  for  the  Union,  1861-1865.  Albany. 
1902. 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.  Butler's  Book.  Boston,  1902.  Useful  for  the 
election  of  1864  in  New  York. 

Cary,  Edward.     George  William  Curtis.     Boston,  1894. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  [650 

Cornell,  Alonzo  B.     Ezra  Cornell.     New  York,  1884. 
Croly,  David  G.     Seymour  and  Blair.     New  York,   1868.     A  cam 
paign  biography. 
Curtis,   George  Ticknor.     Life   of  fames  Buchanan.     New  York. 

1883. 

Coleman,  Mrs.  Chapman.     Life  of  John  J.  Crittenden.     Philadel 
phia,  1873. 
Dana,   Charles   A.     Recollections  of  the  Civil   War.     New  York, 

1898. 

Dix,  Morgan.     Memoirs  of  John  A.  Dix.     New  York,  1883. 
Fessenden,    Francis.     Life   and   Public    Services   of   William   Pitt 

Fessenden.     Boston,  1907. 

Field,  Henry  M.     Life  of  David  Dudley  Field.     New  York,  1898. 
Except  for  the  part  played  by  Field  at  the  Chicago  convention, 
this  book  has  nothing  on  his  political  career  during  1860-4. 
Godwin,    Parke.     A    Biography   of   William   Cullen  Bryant.     New 

York,  1883. 

Gorham,  George  C  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Edwin  M.  Stan- 
ton.  Boston,  1899. 

Hart,  Albert  Bushnell.     Salmon  Portland  Chase.     Boston,  1899. 
Hughes,  Sarah  Forbes.    Letters  and  Recollections  of  John  Murray 

Forbes.     Boston,   1899. 

Ingersoll,  L.  D.  Life  of  Horace  Greeley.  Chicago,  1873.  The 
author  was  a  delegate  to  the  Republican  National  Convention  of 
1860. 

Linn,  William  A.     Horace  Greeley.     New  York,  1903. 
McCabe,  James  D.,  Jr.     The  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Horatio 
Seymour  .  .  .  [and]    of  Francis  P.  Blair,  Jr.     New  York,   1868. 
A  campaign  biography. 
McClure,  Alexander  K.    Abraham  Lincoln  and  Men  of  War-Times. 

Philadelphia.  1892. 
Merriam,  G.  S.     Life  and_  Times  of  Samuel  Bowles.     New  York, 

1885. 

Nicolay,  John  G.  and  Hay,  John.     Abraham  Lincoln.     A  History. 
New  York,  1890.    Volumes  vii,  viii  and  ix  are  of  use  for  the  sub 
ject  here  treated. 
Ogden,    Rollo.      Life    and    Letters    of    Edwin   Lawrence    Godkin. 

New  York,   1907. 

Pearson,  H.  G.     Life  of  John  A.  Andrew.     Boston,  1904. 
Sanborn,  Alvan  F.     Reminiscences  of  Richard  Latfors.    New  York- 

1907. 
Schuckers.  J.   W.     Life  and  Public  Services  of  Salmon  Portland 

Chase.     New  York,  1874. 

Warden.   Robert  B.     An  Account  of  the  Private  Life  and  Public 
Services  of  Salmon  Portland  Chase.     Cincinnati,  1874. 


651]  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  451 

E.  HISTORIES. 

Alexander,  De  Alva  S.  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New 
York.  New  York,  1906,  1909.  Volumes  ii  and  iii  partly  relate  to 
the  period  here  considered.  They  form  the  only  account  hitherto 
published.  Alexander  .writes  in  a  very  interesting  manner  and  i» 
excellent  in  his  personal  descriptions.  He  is,  however,  too  much 
inclined  to  rely  upon  the  New  York  Herald  and  at  other  times 
upon  the  recollections  of  Chauncey  M.  Depew  as  to  what  hap 
pened  between  forty  and  fifty  years  ago.  Very  many  of  Alex 
ander's  pages  are  devoted  to  occurrences  in  the  field  of  national 
politics,  descriptions  of  which  can  be  found  in  other  histories  and 
biographies.  Alexander  ignores  the  formation  of  the  Union 
party  in  New  York. 

Breen,  Matthew  P.  Thirty  Years  of  New  York  Politics.  New 
York,  1899. 

Davenport,  John  I.  The  Election  and  Naturalisation  Frauds  in 
New  York  City.  New  York,  1881. 

Fish,  Carl  Russell.  "  Lincoln  and  the  Patronage."  American  His 
torical  Review,  vol.  viii.  Lancaster,  1902. 

Fry,  James  B.  New  York  and  the  Conscription  of  1863.  New 
York,  1885. 

Halstead,  Murat.  National  Political  Conventions  [of  1860].  Co 
lumbus,  1860. 

Lincoln,  Charles  Z.  Constitutional  History  of  New  York.  Roches 
ter,  1906. 

Myers,  Gustavus.    History  of  Tammany  Hall.    New  York,  1901. 

Read,  J.  Meredith.  "  Military  Affairs  of  New  York  State  in  1861." 
Magazine  of  American  History,  vol.  xiv. 

Rhodes,  James  Ford.  History  of  the  United  States.  New  York, 
1893-1904.  Volumes  ii,  iii,  iv  and  v  are  of  use  for  the  subject 
here  considered. 

Weeden,  William  B.  War  Government,  Federal  and  State,  in 
Massachusetts,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Indiana,  1861-5. 
Boston,  1906.  Very  unfair  to  Northern  Democrats  and  espec 
ially  to  Seymour. 

F.  MISCELLANEOUS. 

Albany  Evening  Journal  Almanac,  1861-5.  Albany,  1861-5. 
American  Annual  Encyclopedia,  1860-4.  New  York,  1861-5. 
Case  of  De  Witt  C.  Littlejohn  against  Horace  Greeley.  New 

York,  1861. 
Tribune  Almanac,  1861-5.     New  York,  1861-5. 


VITA 


The  author  of  this  dissertation  was  born  in  New  York 
City  in  1880.  After  being  graduated  from  grammar  school, 
he  studied  at  the  College  of  the  City  of  New  York,  receiving 
the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1899.  He  was  enrolled  as 
a  graduate  student  at  Columbia  University  during  the 
years  1899-1901,  and  after  studying  under  Professors 
Osgood  and  Seligman  received  the  degree  of  Master  of 
Arts  in  1901.  During  1902,  he  was  a  student  at  the  sem- 
mer  session  of  Cornell  University.  In  1905-7,  he  was 
in  residence  at  Columbia  as  a  candidate  for  the  degree  of 
Doctor  of  Philosophy,  taking  courses  given  by  Professors 
Burgess,  Dunning,  Osgood,  Robinson,  Shepherd,  and 
Sloane,  and  attending  the  seminars  of  Professors  Dunning 
and  Osgood.  He  taught  in  the  elementary  schools  of  New 
York  City  from  1899  to  1905  and  from  1906  to  1908. 
Since  March,  1908,  he  has  been  a  teacher  of  history  in  the 
Brooklyn  Boys5  High  School. 

A  53 


14  DAY 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


r,0t 


jaw 


11. 


FEB  1  9  1969  7  9 





FEB  0620Q1 


FEB  0 1  20IJ3 


LD  21  A-45m-9,'67 
(H5067slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


ru  01699 


232968 


UK  34 

i  a/i 

."B7 


